IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.1226 of 2000 Date of decision: 1st February, 2010 Kallu and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Senior DAG, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Kallu son of Aamin resident of village Babla, Jan Mohammad alias Tony son of Abdul Karim resident of village Sunari, Tahir son of Mamman Meo resident of village Sewka and Ali Mohammad son of Kaarmulla Kasai resident of village Masit were named as accused in case FIR No.35 dated 08.02.1996 registered at Police Station Tauru under Section 3/8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). Ali Mohammad son of Kaarmulla Kasai died during the trial. Tahir son of Mamman Meo was acquitted by the trial Court on the ground that he was not know to the witnesses, no test identification parade was conducted and prosecution failed to prove his identity. However, Kallu son of Aamin and Jan Mohammad alias Tony son of Abdul Karim were pronounced guilty of offence under Section 8 of the Act for having Criminal Revision No.1226 of 2000 contravened section 3 of the Act. Both these accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against the same, both Kallu and Jan Mohammad alias Tony filed an appeal. The appeal was entrusted to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The lower appellate Court upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. The present revision petition was filed by both Kallu and Jan Mohammad alias Tony. On October 31, 2000, this Court admitted the revision petition, however, sentence of only Jan Mohammad petitioner No.2 was suspended and the prayer for bail qua Kallu was declined. R.K. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent, Sub Jail Palwal filed an affidavit on 13th September, 2009, which stated that Kallu had undergone one year three months and fourteen days and was released on 5th January, 2002. It was not coming forward as to how Kallu was released, therefore, counsel for the State was asked to file fresh affidavit. Today, Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG Haryana has filed affidavit of Kulbir Singh, Deputy Superintendent, Sub Jail, Palwal regarding custody of Kallu son of Aamin. This affidavit states that Kallu had undergone one year five months and nine days, and by giving benefit of remission, the convict was released from jail on 1st March, 2002. The affidavit filed by counsel for the State is taken on record. Nobody had caused appearance on behalf of the petitioners on September 3, 2009; September 24, 2009; October 21, 2009 and on January 28, 2009. Today also, nobody is present on behalf of the petitioners. Section 403 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: 2 Criminal Revision No.1226 of 2000 “403. Option of Court to hear parties.- Save as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, no party has any right to be heard either personally or by pleader before any Court exercising its powers of revision, but the Court may if it thinks fit, when exercising such powers, hear any party either personally or by pleader.” Since nobody is appearing for the petitioners in this Court, this Court proceeds to decide the case on merits. On 8th February, 1996, Head Constable Raj Singh, along with his companions Constable Bharat Singh and Rajinder Singh, was performing his duty in village Thithara for detection of crime. On the basis of secret information, they went towards the grazing ground of village Sunari. Their attempt to join any independent person proved futile. When they reached at the grazing ground of village Sunari, four persons were slaughtering the cows. Shree Chand Head Constable saw that out of four persons, Kallu and Jan Mohammad were known to him earlier. They were engaged in the slaughter of cows, but taking the advantage of darkness all the four persons managed to escape. A slaughtered cow, along with an axe, a knife, two pieces of rope, two shirts, one pant and plastic cover, were recovered from the place of occurrence. Prosecution examined PW-2 Dr.M.S. Bhatti, PW-3 HC Raj Singh and PW-4 HC Shree Chand. Constable Bharat Singh and Dalbir Singh SI were not examined. The trial Court relied upon the evidence of witnesses and came to the conclusion that independent witness was not required. The secret information divulged the name of Kallu and Jan Mohammad, and they were known to HC Shree Chand. He had identified them in the Court also. Therefore, the offence against them is duly made out. The Court also placed reliance upon the testimony of Dr.M.S. Bhatti, who had conducted autopsy. Dr.M.S. Bhatti opined that the animal was 3 Criminal Revision No.1226 of 2000 freshly butchered. The findings of the trial Court have been affirmed by the lower appellate Court. With the aid of Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG Haryana, I have perused the testimony of the witnesses. PW-3 HC Raj Singh has specifically stated that HC Shree Chand had identified the accused in the light of torch. Besides this, an axe, a knife and two ropes were recovered from the spot, which were taken into custody vide recovery memo Ex.PW3/A. A site plan of the spot Ex.PW4/C was also prepared. This Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot re- appreciate the evidence of witnesses. No patent illegality or irregularity is discernible. Thus, there is no merit in the present revision petition. According to the counsel for the State, Kallu has undergone the entire sentence and has been released by giving benefit of remission, therefore, no orders are required to be passed regarding the sentence qua Kallu petitioner. In the present case, occurrence pertains to 8th February, 1996. Petitioner No.1 Jam Mohammad has suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial for about 14 years. Taking this fact into consideration, the sentence awarded upon petitioner No.1 Jam Mohammad is reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. With the modifications in sentence and the observations made above, present revision petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE February 1, 2010 rps 4