The Uttarakhand High Court has allowed Criminal Appeal No.337 of 2013 filed by Hemu Pant @ Hemu Kalu and Manish @ Kanchu Matiyani, setting aside their conviction and sentence under Sections 2/3 of the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. Justice Ashish Naithani, while pronouncing the judgment on 21 April 2026, held that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that mere criminal antecedents or inclusion in a police-prepared gang chart cannot, by themselves, justify conviction under the special statute in the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating the existence of an organized gang and continuity of unlawful activity in furtherance of a common object.
The case originated from Crime No.329 of 2007 registered at Police Station Haldwani, wherein the appellants were alleged to be members of a gang engaged in anti-social activities primarily on the basis of their inclusion in a gang chart and their alleged involvement in previous criminal cases. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the appellants were tried in Special Sessions Trial No.5A of 2007 before the Special Judge (Gangster Act)/Sessions Judge, Nainital. The trial court convicted them on 19 August 2013 and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs.10,000, with a default sentence of six monthsā additional imprisonment.
Assailing the judgment, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the statutory requirements under the Gangsters Act. It was argued that the entire case rested solely on the gang chart and past criminal history without any independent or substantive evidence showing that the appellants were acting in concert as members of an organized gang or that their acts formed part of a continuing unlawful activity. No independent public witness was examined, and the case depended entirely on official police witnesses whose testimony, in the absence of corroboration, required greater scrutiny. It was further pointed out that similarly placed co-accused had been acquitted, yet no distinguishing feature was indicated to justify the conviction of the present appellants.
Upon reappraisal of the entire evidence, the High Court found that the prosecution had not established the foundational requirements under the Act ā namely, the existence of a gang as defined under Section 2(b), continuity of unlawful activity, and the appellantsā participation therein in furtherance of a common object. The witnesses examined were predominantly police officials whose evidence was formal in nature and limited to proving the preparation of the gang chart and registration of previous cases. There was a complete absence of material demonstrating any meeting of minds, common design, or concerted action linking the alleged offences into a continuing course of conduct. Mere registration of prior cases, without proof of their outcome or any organized pattern, was held insufficient to satisfy the requirement of ācontinuing unlawful activityā.
The Court further noted the absence of independent corroborative evidence and the acquittal of co-accused in the same trial, which substantially weakened the prosecutionās case regarding the existence of a gang. It emphasized that the provisions of the Gangsters Act, being a special penal statute, require strict proof of statutory ingredients and cannot be invoked on the basis of presumptions, conjectures, or general allegations. The trial courtās approach of relying solely on criminal history and the gang chart was held legally unsustainable. Extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence in its entirety. Since the appellants had remained on bail throughout the pendency of the appeal pursuant to the order dated 22 August 2013, their bail bonds were discharged and sureties released, with the clarification that the order would not affect their custody, if any, in any other case.
Case Title: Hemu Pant @ Hemu Kalu and Another v. State of Uttarakhand
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.337 of 2013
Date of Judgment: 21 April 2026
Coram: Honāble Mr. Justice Ashish Naithani
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 