Criminal Revision No. 767 of 2000 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Revision No. 767 of 2000 Date of Decision: 9.3.2010 Mulli alias Saddiq and Another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kuldeep Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been preferred by Mulli alias Saddiq son of Hasmal and Tahir alias Sateef son of Amin, who were named as accused in case FIR No. 325 dated 27.12.1996 registered at Police Station Nuh, under Sections 3 and 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “1955 Act”). The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, held both the accused guilty for contravention of the provisions of Section 3, which is punishable under Section 8 of the 1955 Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction dated 3.3.2000 and order of sentence dated 6.3.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Criminal Revision No. 767 of 2000 2 Judicial Magistrate, Nuh, the petitioners had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court, while affirming the findings regarding conviction and maintaining the sentence of the trial Court, had dismissed the appeal. The criminal proceedings were set into motion on the basis of a ruqa sent by Sarup Singh, Head Constable, at Police Station Nuh, on 27.12.1996 at 2.00 P.M. In the ruqa, it was stated that Sarup Singh, Head Constable, along with his companion police officials was present for detection of crime near Petrol Pump, Nuh, when a special informant came and gave an information that Mulli alias Saddiq son of Hasmal and Tahir alias Sateef son of Amin were going to slaughter one Cow, tied its feet and made it fall on the ground. In case, a raid was conducted, the accused can be caught red handed while committing slaughter of the cow. Considering the information to be reliable, a raiding party was constituted and an offer was made to some persons to join as an independent witness but nobody came forward. When the raiding party arrived at the spot, two persons were found with the slaughtered cow, out of them one was peeling off the skin and another was cutting the meat into pieces of the cow which was struggling for life. Both the persons ran away from the spot, whose names were Mulli alias Saddiq son of Hasmal, resident of village Nijampur and Tahir alias Sateef son of Amin, resident of village Chawan Nijampur. One skin, 60 Kgs. of meat of the cow, one knife, one kulhari stained with blood and one nylon rope were recovered from the spot. The above said FIR was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. On 29.3.1997, the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh, Criminal Revision No. 767 of 2000 3 had charged both the petitioners for having slaughtered the cow and contravened the provisions of Section 3 punishable under Section 8 of the 1955 Act. Both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution commenced its evidence and examined Kailash Chander, Sub Inspector/Station House Officer, as PW.1, who had prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. PW.2 Dr. Ravinder Singh, Veterinary Officer, had proved his report Ex.PW.2/A. In cross-examination, this witness stated that from physical examination of the skin and the meat, he came to a conclusion that the same were not of a dead cow. PW.5 Sarup Singh, Head Constable, had reiterated as to what was stated in the ruqa. His testimony was corroborated by PW.3 Sher Singh, Constable, who was a member of the raiding party. PW.4 Arvind Kumar, Head Constable, on receipt of ruqa Ex.PW.5/A, had registered the formal FIR Ex.PW.4/A. Thereafter, the prosecution had closed its evidence. The statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating circumstances were put to them. They denied the same and pleaded false implication due to party faction, at the instance of one Tayyub. No witness was examined in defence. Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kuldeep Singh Saini, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove that the skin and meat belonged to a cow which was slaughtered. He has further submitted that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that skin and the meat were Criminal Revision No. 767 of 2000 4 not of a cow which had already died. A perusal of ruqa Ex.PW.5/A reveals that when the police party had reached at the spot, the cow was struggling for life and one of the accused was peeling off its skin. Furthermore, in the cross- examination PW.2 Dr. Ravinder Singh, Veterinary Officer, had specifically negated this argument. Learned counsel has raised another argument that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused. It is submitted that no test identification parade was conducted and the accused was identified for the first time in the Court. This argument is also devoid of any merit. In the ruqa Ex.PW.5/A, names of the accused were mentioned. The Investigating Officer had named the two accused who had succeeded in running away from the spot. In the cross- examination PW.5 Sarup Singh, Head Constable, had stated that accused Mulli alias Saddiq was known to him earlier as he had already arrested this accused in another case of cow slaughter. It was next contended that no independent witness was joined and even the person who had given information was not examined by the prosecution. Both the Courts below found the testimony of PW.3 Sher Singh, Constable, and PW.5 Sarup Singh, Head Constable, to be reliable and trustworthy. Once both the Courts below came to a conclusion that the testimony of the official witnesses aspire confidence, there is no need to corroborate the same from an independent source. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision petition and the same is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel has contended that the Criminal Revision No. 767 of 2000 5 occurrence, in the present case, had taken place in the year 1996 and the petitioners have already suffered a lot of mental pain and agony of protracted trial for the last more than 13 years. He has further submitted that the petitioners have already undergone one month of actual sentence, out of the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment awarded to them. Taking into consideration the alternative submission made by the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the benefit of protracted trial can be granted to both the petitioners. Hence, sentence of one year awarded to the petitioners is reduced to four months rigorous imprisonment. The petition stands disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 9, 2010 “DK”