IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Appeal No. 1999-SB of 2002 Date of decision: 30th April, 2010 Harun and others … Appellants Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate Amicus Curiae for the appellants. Mr. Shakti S. Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by eleven persons, namely Harun, Asluf, Asru, Mohd.Harun, Isri @ Tota, Ali Mohd., Behra @ Abbas, Sheru, Sher Mohd., Pappu and Jafru. They have directed this appeal against the judgment dated 7th December, 2002 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court-II, Faridabad, whereby the appellants were held guilty of offence punishable under Sections 148, 332/149, 324/149, 353/149, 342/149 IPC and Section 3 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. However, the prosecution story for the offences under Sections 333/149, 307/149, 395/149 and 397/149 IPC was not accepted and the appellants were acquitted of these charges. The appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two Criminal Appeal No.1999-SB of 2002 months under Sections 148 IPC. A similar sentence was also awarded to the appellants for offence under Sections 332 and 324 IPC. They were further sentenced under Section 353 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. Under Section 342 IPC the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the appellants were also sentenced under Section 3 read with Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.250/- each, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. All the aforesaid eleven appellants were named as accused, along with Sahid and Ashraf, in case FIR No.129 dated 11.06.1998 registered at Police Station Hathin under Sections 148, 332, 333, 353, 342, 307, 395, 397, 149 IPC and Section 3 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). Sahid and Ashraf were declared as proclaimed offenders. Brief facts of the case can be recapitulated from the ruqa Ex.PN sent by ASI Jai Siri PW-16, who stated that on 10th June, 1998 at about 11.00 p.m. a secret information was received that Isri @ Tota resident of village Ali Meo along with Behra, Mudda @ Sahid, Shera and others were committing offence of cow slaughter. Immediately, a police party rushed towards the house of Isri and on reaching there, they found Mudda, Shera, Behra along with 5/6 other persons slaughtering cows. On seeing the police, all the accused ran away and after a short while, the accused Isri, Behra, Shera, Mudda, Harun, Hanif, Asraf, Babli, Pappu etc returned at the spot armed with Lathis, Balams and country-made pistols, 2 Criminal Appeal No.1999-SB of 2002 with an intention to teach a lesson to the police party. They were raising lalkara. Isri said that the police party, on the pretext of stopping cow slaughter, had created havoc. Isri asked his brother to fire a shot at the Thanedar. At that time, Behra fired a shot from his country-made pistol, which hit on the left shoulder of Jai Siri. Mudda gave one Lathi blow on the temporal region of Jai Siri and Harun gave a Balam blow on his shoulder. Remaining accused caused injuries to other members of the police party. They also snatched the rifles of constable Karamvir and constable Ajay Kumar. They also took away a Titan wrist watch belonging to HC Tek Chand. Revolver of ASI Jai Siri was also snatched by Behra and Isri. All the police officials were detained. Thereafter, the accused loaded the slaughtered cows in a tractor and took them away. Then Kasim Sarpanch and other villagers reached at the spot and got the arms of the police party returned to them. Constable Mohinder took all the injured to Government Hospital, Hathin, where they were admitted. With the able assistance rendered by Mr.Rajesh Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Shakti Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, I have gone through the evidence. Bhagirath PW-1 was examined by the prosecution. He stated that on 10th June, 1998, a police party came to the village. They went to Sarpanch, where he was sitting. The police informed that Meos had slaughtered a cow and that the Sarpanch and others should accompany them to the site near Bahin Canal. Dead cows were seen floating in the Canal. This witness was declared hostile and was confronted with his previous statement. When this witness was recalled for examination, he stated that skeletons of 82 cows were found at the Canal. He further stated that police had obtained his signatures on blank papers. 3 Criminal Appeal No.1999-SB of 2002 SI Randhir Singh PW-2 on receipt of ruqa, had recorded formal FIR Ex.PE. He also proved disclosure statement made by Sheru and Behra @ Abbas. Constable Ram Sahay PW-3 was a witness to the disclosure statement suffered by Harun and the recovery effected in pursuance of the same. From him, prosecution got exhibited recovered Lathis as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Anoj Kumar Draftsman appeared as PW-4. He had prepared the scaled site plan Ex.PF of the spot. Constable Rambir PW-5 was a witness to the disclosure statement suffered by Zafru and in pursuance thereof recovery of a Lathi Ex.P8. HC Durga Prashad PW-6 was a witness to the disclosure statement suffered by Sheru and recovery of a Lathi Ex.P9 in pursuance thereof. HC Chiranji Lal PW-7 had also proved recovery of Lathi Ex.P8 on the basis of disclosure statement suffered by Zafru. Sudhir Kapoor PW-8 was posted as a Medical Officer and he had medico legally examined all the injured police officials, namely, Tek Chand, Karambir, Kesav Ram, Jai Siri and Ajay Singh. Four injuries were found on the person of Tek Chand. Injury No.2 was complain of pain. Karambir suffered an injury on his skull. Kesav Ram suffered injury on his right frontal region. Four injuries were found on the person of Jai Siri. Injury No.2 was complain of pain. There was one injury on the person of Ajay Singh. ASI Tek Chand injured appeared as PW-9, Constable Karambir as PW-10, HC Kesav Ram as PW-11, Ajay Kumar as PW-12, ASI Jai Kishan as PW-13 and Jai Siri as PW-16. They were the eye- 4 Criminal Appeal No.1999-SB of 2002 witnesses being injured and have proved the prosecution version as contained in ruqa Ex.PN. ASI Jai Kishan PW-13 had taken into possession one Pulanda containing shirt of the uniform of ASI Jai Siri. Dr.S.L. Mehra PW-14 found a fracture of the mandible of the right side of the face of Jai Siri. However, this witness found no fracture on the person of Kesav Ram and Karambir. In cross examination, this witness stated that the fracture on mandible of Jai Siri could be possible by forcible fall on a hard surface. SI Ram Dutt PW-15 had recorded statement of the Draftsman. Inspector Bhoop Singh PW-17 proved arrest of the accused and interrogation made of a few accused. SI Prem Narayan PW-18 proved various aspects of the investigation. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and all incriminating circumstances were put to them. According to the counsel, they denied the same and pleaded false implication. In defence, Mohd. Kasim was examined as DW-1. He was Sarpanch of the village. This witness stated that at the site, about 500/600 persons were present. He was not aware who inflicted the injuries to whom but he had taken the injured police officials to the hospital. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, appearing as Amicus Curiae for the appellants, has stated that the prosecution story is unnatural, improbable and unconvincing. It is stated that the version given by Jai Siri PW-16 that the accused snatched the revolvers and fire arms of the police officials and then returned the same at the intervention of Sarpanch, being improbable, cannot be believed. It is further submitted that if the fire arms were not to 5 Criminal Appeal No.1999-SB of 2002 be used by the police, then what for they were armed. Learned counsel has stated that it is highly unnatural that a police official will suffer injuries and being armed with the weapons, the other officials will not use the same. It is further submitted that Jai Siri PW-16 had stated that the accused Behra had fired a shot, which hit on the shoulder of this witness, but in medical evidence, no such fire-arm injury was found. Thirdly, it is submitted that as a convenient escape route, to obliterate the very reason for the police going at the spot, has been coined to say that all the accused returned and took away the slaughtered cows, so that no evidence of the slaughtered cows existed at the spot. It is further submitted that since there was no recovery of cows, any bones or skin, therefore, the very story that the police party had gone at the spot to track the accused for offence of cow slaughter is not proved. It is urged before this Court that prosecution had not examined the veterinary surgeon, even though he was cited as a witness. It is stated that no independent witness was examined to depose that the accused had committed any offence of cow slaughter, which warranted presence of the police at the spot. It is submitted that Bhagirath PW-1 had not supported the prosecution version. Mr.Sethi has very vehemently argued that the Sarpanch of the village Mohd. Kasim DW- 1 was the most independent person. According to the police, at the intervention of this witness, arms were retuned and the policemen were rescued and were taken to the hospital. Furthermore, it is stated that the police party had gone to the house of Sarpanch and he had accompanied the police party to the spot. It is submitted that according to this witness, no specific overt role has been assigned to any of the accused. Mr. Shakti Singh Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General Haryana has submitted that the police witnesses had received injuries. One of the officials had suffered a fracture of mandible. Therefore, their 6 Criminal Appeal No.1999-SB of 2002 statements have been rightly relied upon by the trial Court to convict the present appellants. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. From a perusal of the evidence of Dr.Sudhir Kapoor PW-8, it is evident that Tek Chand, Karambir, Kesav Ram, Jai Siri and Ajay Singh had suffered injuries. Five police officials were injured at the spot. The injury suffered by Karambir is on his skull, Kesav Ram suffered injury on his head, Jai Siri had suffered fracture of his mandible and Tek Chand suffered injury in his chest region. Therefore, the injuries of the policemen cannot be self-suffered. Presence of the police officials, who have been examined as witnesses being injured persons, at the spot is stamped. Furthermore, these police officials are not inimical to the accused. They are not the witnesses from a tainted source. Though, it can be said that the police officials are also not truthful to divulge the origin and genesis of the occurrence, but their testimony cannot be completely discarded. In the present case, police officials have shown restrain by not firing the shots at the mob. According to Mohd. Kasim DW-1, who was Sarpanch of the village, 500/600 persons had gathered there. It is stated that a number of cows were being slaughtered by the accused. They acted in a manner to thwart the attempt of police officials to take them to task. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants are guilty of the offence and they have been rightly convicted by the trial Court. However, in the present case, occurrence had taken place in the year 1998. Twelve long years are going to elapse. Taking into consideration sufferance of a protracted trial as a mitigating circumstance, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced from one and a half year to one year rigorous imprisonment. 7 Criminal Appeal No.1999-SB of 2002 With the modification in sentence noticed above, present appeal is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 30, 2010 rps 8