Allahabad High Court Sentences Mukhtar Ansari To 7-Year-Jail For Abusing, Intimidating And Threatening A Jailer For His Life In 2003

The Allahabad High Court today sentenced former UP MLA Mukhtar Ansari to 7 years in jail after holding him guilty of intimidating a Jailer who was performing public duty by abusing him and pointing a revolver/pistol toward him, and threatening to kill him in the year 2003

With this, the bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh set aside the acquittal order passed in favor of Ansari by the Special Judge, M.P./M.L.A., Additional Sessions Judge, Lucknow in the year 2020 as it noted that the approach of the trial Court in evaluating the evidence before it was palpably erroneous.

The Court observed that Ansari used criminal force by pointing a pistol toward the Jailer with the intention to prevent and deter him from discharging his duty as a Jailer, therefore, the Court found him guilty of committing the offence under Section 353 IPC. He was also found guilty of committing the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.

The case in brief

As per the complainant, S.K. Awasthi, he was posted as a Jailer in District Jail, Lucknow in the year 2003. On April 23, 2003 at around 10:30 A.M., when he was sitting in his office inside the jail, he was told that some persons had come to meet prisoner, Mukhtar Ansari, the respondent.

Ansari, who was also an M.L.A., came to the office of the Jailer. The complainant ordered for his frisking, on which Mukhtar Ansari got highly annoyed. He said, "You Jailer think yourself very high. You create hurdles in coming persons to meet me." To this, Jailer Awasthi told Ansari that these persons cannot come inside without being frisked.

To this, Ansari said, "You come out of Jail today, I would get you killed." Further, he also abused the jailer and took the revolver from one of the persons, who had come to meet him and pointed it toward the complainant. It was said that some people caught hold of Mukhtar Ansari and some caught hold of the complainant, otherwise any untoward incident could have taken place. 

At the time of the incident, Deputy Jailer, Mr. Sarvesh Vikram Singh, Deputy Jailer, Shailendra Pratap Singh, Gate Keeper, Prem Chandra Maurya, I.W. Rudra Bihari Srivastava, I.W. Radheyshyam Yadav, I.W. Ram Swaroop Pal were present.

An FIR was lodged in the case, thereafter, a charge sheet was filed and charges were framed by the Magistrate for offences under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC in June 2003. Considering the evidence and submissions on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the Trial Court found that offences were not made out and thus, it acquitted the accused. Challenging the same, the Government moved the instant appeal before the High Court.

Before the High Court, the Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-appellant submitted that Ansari's name strikes fear and terror in the hearts and minds of the general public, and even among Government officials and that he used to treat jail as his seat of power where his people could come and meet him freely at any time even carrying arms without any hindrance or obstacle by jail officials and when Jailer Awasthi tried to regulate visitors according to Jail Book and Jail Manual, Ansari could not tolerate it.

Court's observations

The Court, at the outset, noted that the place of incident, presence of the accused at the place of incident, presence of the complainant, and the witnesses of fact are not in dispute. Further, the Court noted that Ansari has the reputation of being the most dreaded criminal and mafia don who had more than 60 cases of heinous offences to his credit.

The Court further noted that the Complainant's (Jailer) examination was completed on December 2003, however, the accused did not cross-examine him on that day and the right of cross examination was closed. Meanwhile, the complainant got retired soon and after 10 years, an application was filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the accused to recall the complainant again.

Finding it strange, the Court found substance in the submission of the A.G.A. that after the complainant was won over by the accused, an application was filed to recall the said witness which was allowed and then, the complainant did not support the prosecution's case in its entirety in his cross-examination purportedly out of fear for the safety of his family members.

"Had P.W.-1 been examined on the same day in all likelihood, he would have supported the prosecution case as he did in his examinationin-chief. The accused-respondent deliberately did not cross examine the said witness on the said date and after the said witness was won over, an application came to be filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to recall the said witness and said application was allowed vide order dated 30.01.2014 and in the cross-examination he deviated from the prosecution case to some extent," the Court further remarked as it stressed that the evidence given in the examination-in-chief does not get completely obliterated, if the witnesses in his cross-examination turn hostile or do not support his evidence given in examination-in-chief.

Consequently, analyzing the evidence brought on record, the Court said that it is proved that Ansari used criminal force by pointing pistol towards him with intent to prevent and deter the complainant from discharging his duty as a Jailer and finally convicted him under section 353, 504 and 506 of IPC.

Case title - State of U.P. v. Mukhtar Ansari [GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 780 of 2021]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 441

Click Here To Read/Download Order