Crl. Rev. No.1268 of 1999 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No.1268 of 1999 Date of Decision: 25 - 2 - 2010 Jamil and others ....Petitioners v. State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Sarfraz Hussain, Advocate for Mr.Ramesh Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.ManishDeswal, DAG, Haryana. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been preferred by three petitioners, namely, Jamil, Hakku and Ashu sons of Chhajju. They were named as accused in case FIR No.244 dated 16.12.1995 registered at Police Station Ferozepur Jhirka under Section 3/8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as, `the Act'). The Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur Jhirka vide judgment dated 22.3.1999 had sentenced the petitioners to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved against the judgment of the trial Crl. Rev. No.1268 of 1999 [2] Court, the petitioners had filed an appeal. The lower Appellate Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed the same. In the present case, FIR was registered on the basis of ruqa Ex.PW1/A sent by ASI Vidyanand PW5. In the ruqa ASI Vidyanand stated that he along with his companion police officials was present at Mahu Chowk, in connection with patrolling duty and search of suspicious persons, when a special informant gave information that Jamil, Hakku and Ashu sons of Chhajju on the hills of Mahu are slaughtering the cows. In case a raid is conducted, live cows can be apprehended. On 16.12.1995 at 4.25 P.M., a raiding party was constituted, which reached near the place of slaughtering. They saw accused Jamil peeling the skin of a cow. Ashu was helping and Hakku had caught hold of neck of the cow. At that time, four other cows were tied there. When ASI Vidyanand reached near the place of occurrence, at that time, Jamil was placing the skin of the cow on the ground. On seeing the police party, all the three accused ran away from the spot. From the spot, one blood stained skin of a cow, 75 Kgs. cow meat, one dagger and four live cows were recovered and were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PA/1. ASI Vidyanand prepared rough site plan Ex.PC of the spot. The FIR was investigated. Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The petitioners were charged for offence under Section 3/8 of the Act. Prosecution had examined Kartar Singh PW1 who on the basis of ruqa Ex.PW1/A sent by ASI Vidyanand, had registered formal FIR Ex.PW1/B. Dr.Gori Shanker PW2, Veterinary Surgeon proved his report Crl. Rev. No.1268 of 1999 [3] Ex.PA. As per report Ex.PA, the colour of the skin was white and it was opined that the skin belonged to one female cow. There were fresh clotted blood spots present on the skin. Throat region portion of the skin was having a transverse cut which was caused with the help of a sharp edged pointed weapon. It was finally opined from examination of the skin and 75 Kgs. of meat that it belonged to one slaughtered female cow which had been slaughtered with the help of a sharp edged pointed weapon. ASI Vidyanand appeared as PW5. He deposed regarding receipt of information, constitution of a raiding party, recovery of skin and meat from the spot. In cross-examination, this witness stated that accused were known to him earlier because they were engaged in cow slaughtering. Constable Samunder Singh PW3 and Constable Jagat Singh PW4 corroborated the testimony of ASI Vidyanand PW5. Thereafter, the prosecution closed its evidence. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them and pleaded false implication. Two Courts below have placed implicit reliance on the testimonies of ASI Vidyanand PW5, Constable Samunder Singh PW3 and Constable Jagat Singh PW4. Mr.Sarfraz Hussain, counsel appearing for the petitioners has stated that ASI Vidyanand was the complainant. He had sent ruqa Ex.PW1/A. Therefore, he could not have investigated the present FIR. Counsel has failed to substantiate the rationale of this argument. In the present case, the Investigating Officer had received the secret information and in pursuance thereof he had sent the ruqa to the police station and had Crl. Rev. No.1268 of 1999 [4] proceeded to the spot of crime. In case a different Investigating Officer was to be brought in, by that time, the accused may have decamped. Therefore, the exigency of the situation demanded that ASI Vidyanand should have proceeded at the spot and had taken the accused to the task. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners has stated that in the present case, the occurrence had taken place in December, 1995. At that time, accused Jamil was aged 30 years, Hakku was aged 25 years and Ashu was aged 35 years. The petitioners had already suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial. Therefore, taking this aspect of the matter as a mitigating circumstance, sentence may be adequately reduced. Taking into consideration that the petitioners had suffered mental pain and agony of protracted trial, this Court is of the view that ends of justice will be fully met in case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners by the trial Court and affirmed by the lower Appellate Court is suitably reduced. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. With the aforesaid observations, the present revision petition is disposed of. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) February 25, 2010 JUDGE RC