Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Jagdish on 24 May, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023/RJJD/016635]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 917/2022
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Appellant
Versus
1. Jagdish S/o Godu Banjara, A-171-Sector 13 Kumbha
Circle, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.
2. Gopal S/o Dalu Banjara, Saran, P.s. Gangrar, Dist.
Chittorgarh.
3. Madan @ Madanlal S/o Mangu Banjara, C-26, Sector 13
Kumbha Circle, Azad Nagar, Bhilwara.
4. Miru S/o Peeru Pathan, Aged Major, R/o Sanganer, P.s.
Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Javeed Gauri, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :::: 19/05/2023
JUDGMETN PRONOUNCED ON :::: 24/05/2023
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred on behalf of the State of Rajasthan against the judgment dated 16.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.05/2015 whereby the accused respondents were acquitted from the charges under Sections 3/8, 5/8 and 6/8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition Of Slaughter & Regulation Of Temporary Migration Or Export) Act, 1995. (Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:08:55 PM) [2023/RJJD/016635] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-917/2022]
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 29.11.2014 at about 2:30 p.m. Shri Gopal Krishan, ASI submitted a written report to the effect that he received a telephonic information at the Police out post Sadas under the Police Station regarding illegal immigration of bovine, the police team intercepted a vehicle. 21 bovines were found in the truck besides that four were found dead. The accused-respondents were arrested for the accusation of transporting animals to State of Madhey Pradesh and for which they were not having valid licence.
3. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet for offence under Sections 3/8, 5/8 and 6/8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition Of Slaughter & Regulation Of Temporary Migration Or Export) Act, 1995 (herein after referred to as 'the Act of 1995') came to be filed whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the matter to the Court of learned trial Court. The charges for the alleged offences were framed.
4. As many as 11 witnesses were examined and upon 40 documents reliance was placed on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, an explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was sought from the accused in which they pleaded innocence. However, no evidence in defence was produced whereafter, the learned trial court heard the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused and passed the judgment impugned whereby, they were acquitted from the charges.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State of Rajasthan has preferred a Criminal Leave to Appeal in which a (Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:08:55 PM) [2023/RJJD/016635] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-917/2022] Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2022 had granted leave to the State to prefer an appeal, thus, the instant appeal.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently contended that the judgment of acquittal suffers from serious infirmities and illegalities and the learned trial Court has reached at an erroneous conclusions of acquittal of the accused. Ample evidence was produced on behalf of the prosecution to establish the fact that the accused-respondents were carrying bovine in a truck which was intercepted by the police and 20-25 bovines were found tide therein. At the time of interception, the accused-respondents disclosed the act to the police that they were carrying the bovines towards Madhey Pradesh for the purpose of slaughtering and for that they were not having any valid licence. The bovine animals were seized and accused respondents were arrested and requisite material was produced in trial from which a safe inference of guilt can easily be drawn.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused- respondents opposed the submissions made at the behest of the appellant State and it is contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt and, therefore, the learned trial Judge has not found them guilty. He further submits that the judgment impugned is a well reasoned order, requires no interference by this Court in an appeal against acquittal.
(Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:08:55 PM) [2023/RJJD/016635] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-917/2022]
8. Heard learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondents and perused the judgment and other material available on record.
9. A presumption of innocence which was already existing in favour of the accused has further been fortified by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. This Court is of the firm view that unless gross illegality, blatant misappreciation of evidence, or ignorance of the material available on record is shown or it is shown that the judgment of acquittal is a product of total non-consideration of the evidence available on record; the appellate Court should be very slow and should show reluctance in making interference in the judgment of acquittal. For satisfaction of the legality and the propriety of the judgment impugned, I have carefully scanned the evidence brought on record. The most crucial and principal element of Section 3 of the Act of 1995 would be that the accused were carrying the bovines from the State of Rajasthan to any other State for slaughtering purpose. In other words, it can be said that it is imperative upon the prosecution to establish the fact beyond reasonable doubt that the accused were transporting/carrying the bovines, making illegal immigration of the bovines from State of Rajasthan to any other State and that the transportation was being made for slaughtering purpose.
10. Herein in this case, the bovines were allegedly recovered within the territory of State of Rajasthan. Neither it is the case of the prosecution that the bovines were being taken to the State of Madhey Pradesh or at any particular place or in any other State (Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:08:55 PM) [2023/RJJD/016635] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-917/2022] nor any oral or documentary evidence has been produced in this regard. The learned trial Judge has prudently discussed the aforesaid legal and factual aspects of the matter which was the mandate of law in which I see no reason for interference. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the accused, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond every shadow of reasonable doubt.
11. Accordingly, there is no force in the instant appeal, the same deserves dismissal and is dismissed as such.
12. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J 157-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 25/05/2023 at 09:08:55 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)