IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 342 of 2002 Harun … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent Criminal Revision No. 468 of 2002 Sharulla alias Sher Mohd. … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent Date of decision: 5th April, 2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate and Mr. Anurag Arora, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Rai, Senior Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manish Deswal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the State. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) By this common order, Criminal Revision No. 342 of 2002 preferred by Harun son of Idrish and Criminal Revision No. 468 of 2002 preferred by Sharulla alias Sher Mohd. shall be decided together. Both the petitioners were named as accused in case FIR No.312 dated 19.11.1998 registered at Police Station Nuh under Section 3 Criminal Revisions No.342 and 468 of 2002 read with Section 8 of The Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’). The Court of Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Nuh vide its judgment dated 22nd January, 2001 found them guilty of an offence under Section 3 read with Section 8 of the Act and sentenced Harun to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Sharulla was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Since Sharulla was a previous convict, he was awarded the sentence more than that of his co-accused Harun. Both the petitioners went in appeal, but failed. Hence the present petition. ASI Om Parkash PW-8 had sent a ruqa Ex.PW8/A to SHO, Police Station Nuh, in which he stated that he along with his companion police officials, was present at bus stand Ferozepur Namak, when a special informant gave an information that Sharulla along with his companion, was committing an offence of cow slaughter and in case a raid was conducted, these accused could be arrested. The police reached at the house of Sharulla. On seeing the police party, the accused ran away from the spot. A Tata Tempo, loaded with 7/8 tons of beef, was recovered. The police party also took into possession 18 skins of cows having fresh blood and 3/4 axes and knives marked with fresh blood. After the recovery was effected, a writing was sent to the Police Station for registration of the case. Prosecution examined eight witnesses. The trial Court held that it is conclusively proved from the testimony of PW-2 Constable 2 Criminal Revisions No.342 and 468 of 2002 Yashpal and PW-8 ASI Om Parkash that recovery of the beef of freshly slaughtered cows was made from the house of Sharulla. The Court further relied upon the testimony of PW-5 Dr.Om Parkash, Veterinary Surgeon, who proved by examination of the skins that the skins and the meat belonged to freshly slaughtered cows. The argument that no independent witness was examined, is fatal to the prosecution, was also rejected. The trial Court further came to the conclusion that from the testimony of PW-8 ASI Om Parkash, identification of Harun accused was proved. The Court further gave a finding that from the testimony of PW-2 Yashpal, identification of accused Sharulla was also proved. Furthermore, in the present case, recovery was effected from the house of Sharulla. The findings of the trial Court were duly affirmed by the lower appellate Court. Mr.Karan Pathak, Advocate appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the prosecution has not examined the independent witness and has also failed to prove the identity of both the accused. However, he has not been able to assail the testimonies of PW-2 Yashpal and PW-8 ASI Om Parkash. Learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, occurrence pertains to the year 1988 and petitioners have suffered mental pain and agony of a protracted trial, therefore, the sentence awarded upon the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner’s guilt has been duly proved and affirmed by the appellate Court, therefore, they do not deserve any leniency. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have gone through the record. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, cannot tread on the path of re-appraisal and re-appreciation of evidence. The trial 3 Criminal Revisions No.342 and 468 of 2002 Court has rightly relied upon the testimonies of PW-2 Yashpal and PW-8 ASI Om Parkash, and the fact that 18 skins of cows having fresh blood, 3/4 axes and knives marked with fresh blood were recovered from the house of Sharulla. However, long pendency of the trial can be considered as a mitigating circumstance. The accused are in the corridors of Courts for the last more than 18 years. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice will be fully met in case the sentence awarded upon accused Harun is reduced from one year to four months rigorous imprisonment and that of Sharulla from two years to six months rigorous imprisonment. However, the sentence of fine and default clause are maintained. With the observations made above, both the revision petitions are disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE April 5, 2010 rps 4