IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.984 of 2000 Date of decision: 27th January, 2010 Kassam and another … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition has been preferred by Kassam son of Deena and his brother Ayub. They were tried by the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nuh in case FIR No.224 dated 21st August, 1996 registered at Police Station Nuh for contravention of section 3 of The Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) punishable under Section 8 of the Act. The case set against the accused was that on 21st August, 1996, police party headed by ASI Bijender Singh received secret information that accused are engaged in slaughtering of cows being habitual and on that day in case raid is conducted, they can be caught at the spot committing the offence. The police party conducted raid and found that both the accused were tying the legs of a cow. One of the accused was slaughtering a cow from neck and another was holding the tail of the Criminal Revision No. 984 of 2000 cow. On seeing the police party, accused ran away from the spot. The police party reached at the spot and recovered ten cow skins, two knifes and one rope. A memo Ex.PW2/A was prepared by ASI Bijender Singh. The same was attested by constable Ravinder Kumar and constable Arvind Kumar. ASI Bijender Singh also prepared rough sketch plan of the spot Ex.PW2/C. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. On 19th December, 1996, the Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Nuh framed charge against the accused petitioners that on 21st August, 1996 in the area of village Devla Nangli, they were found slaughtering cows and thereby contravened the provisions of section 3 punishable under Section 8 of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined Dr.Ravinder Singh as PW-1, who stated that on 21st August, 1996, he was posted as a Veterinary Doctor at Nagina. He proved report Ex.PW1/A submitted by him in which he stated that the skin presented before him by ASI Bijender Singh pertain to cow and the skin portion of hump and tail region were clearly visible. Blood spots were also present on the skin. Light pinkish meat pieces were also there. ASI Bijender Singh appeared as PW-2. He stated that when he reached at the spot, he had seen that the accused had slaughtered nine cows and all the four feet of another cow were tied and knife was used on the neck of that cow and the cow died in their presence. In cross examination, this witness stated that Kassam was using knife on the neck of the cow. He identified Kassam as accused in the Court. He stated that he had identified them at the spot, but they were not known to him earlier. 2 Criminal Revision No. 984 of 2000 Statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. They denied all the incriminating circumstances and pleaded innocence. The trial Court found the petitioners guilty of offence under Section 8 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for ten months and to pay fine of Rs.800/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Aggrieved against the same, petitioners had filed appeal. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction and maintained the sentence. Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Advocate appearing for the accused petitioners, has urged before this Court that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identity of the accused. It is submitted that accused were not known earlier to the police party. They were identified for the first time in Court and to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses no test identification parade was held. Two courts below have held that the witnesses have stated in the Court that while the secret information was relayed, name and marks of identity of the accused were disclosed to the police officials. The police officials saw the accused running away from the spot. They have identified these accused in the Court. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the identification of the accused in Court is a substantive piece of evidence. Test identification parade held earlier, is to corroborate the identification held in Court. Therefore, taking the law into consideration, two courts below have rightly rejected the contention raised before this Court. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, where recovery of skin of cow was effected and accused escaped on seeing the police party, this Court is of the view that conviction recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate Court cannot be disturbed. 3 Criminal Revision No. 984 of 2000 However, in the present case, occurrence pertains to year 1996 and accused petitioners Kassam and Ayub were aged 26 years and 28 years respectively on 19th December, 1996 when charge was framed against them. Taking into consideration long pendency of the case and the fact that the petitioners have suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case sentence awarded upon the petitioners is reduced from ten months simple imprisonment to four months simple imprisonment. With the modifications in sentence noticed above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE January 27, 2010 rps 4