Criminal Revision No.87 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.87 of 2003 Date of Decision 09.03.2010 Vipin @ Buta and another ...... Petitioner(s) VERSUS State of Punjab ...... Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): This petition has arisen out of the judgment dated 09.12.2002, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners-accused (herein referred as 'the accused'), against the judgment dated 28.02.2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Camp Court Batala, convicting and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (herein referred as 'the Act'). On 01.06.1995 Sub Inspector Mangal Singh, Incharge Anti Gunda Staff, Batala, alongwith police officials was holding a picket near Aliwal Road, when he received a secret information to the effect that the accused Roshan Singh, Vipan @ Buta and Chajju (all appellants) were indulging in the business of cow slaughtering and thereby selling and eating the beef. If the raid is conducted, they could be apprehended red handed and the skins as well as beef could be recovered from them. Informer further stated that Hindus worship the cow whereas the accused were slaughtering it and thereby out-raging the religious feelings of Hindus. Believing the information to be reliable, case was registered against them. After associating the independent witnesses namely Mastan and Dalbir Singh, the Investigating Officer raided the disclosed place where the accused were found present and were taken into custody. During investigation the accused Roshan made a disclosure statement to the effect that he had kept concealed the hide of calf alongwith knife and hammer beneath the wheat husk and he could get the same recovered. The accused Vipin @ Buta also made a disclosure statement that he had kept concealed a Criminal Revision No.87 of 2003 2 calf's hide and one knife and similarly Chhajju accused had disclosed that he had kept concealed two hides of calves and one knife in his residence. They further disclosed in their respective statements that they could get recovered the aforesaid incriminating articles and only they knew about the same. Consequently, they get the aforesaid articles recovered from the disclosed places. The beef and skins were presented before the doctor, who opined that the skins were removed within 6 to 8 hours of the death of animals. On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the accused. The accused were charged under Section 295-A IPC and under Section 3 of the Cow Slaughter (Prevention) Act. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Dr.Sarabjit Singh (PW1), who examined the hides of the calves, Investigating Officer SI Mangal Singh (PW2), Mastan Singh, (PW3), Balbir Singh (PW4) and Head Constable Kulwant Singh (PW5). When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. On appreciation of evidence, the accused were convicted and sentenced under Section 8 of the Cow Slaughters Act whereas they were acquitted under Section 295-A IPC. Their appeal also failed. Without assailing the judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged for extending some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Having scrutinized the impugned judgment, it transpires that the hides of the calves and cows were recovered from the accused, therefore, inference could be drawn that they were indulging in the business of cow slaughtering. Mastan (PW 3) and Balbir (PW 4) have also testified that they had seen the accused slaughtering the cows and calves, hides so recovered, as trusted by the doctor were found to be of cows and calves. The accused have failed to explain as to how they came in possession of the skins. The other circumstances to prove the offence is that the weapons for slaughtering the animals were also recovered from the accused. Anyway without further delving deep into the controversy, it is observed that Criminal Revision No.87 of 2003 3 besides the recovery of the weapons, hides and evidence of witnesses, the accused have also not assailed the findings of conviction recorded by the both the courts below against them. Thus, the findings of conviction recorded by the courts below stand confirmed. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is noticed that the occurrence took place way back in the year 1995. The petitioners have already suffered a lot on account of protracted proceedings. They have already undergone about 1 month and 8 days of the substantive sentence. Under these circumstances, it would be in the fitness of things to extend some leniency on the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed with the modification in the sentence to the extent that the petitioners be released on probation under Section 4 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1956 on their executing a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, for a period of one year within which period they shall continue to be of good behaviour and keep peace and in case of breach of conditions of the bond, they would be ready to serve sentence as and when called for. Copy of the order be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, for compliance. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 09.03.2010 mamta-II