Chattisgarh High Court
Kishore Kumar And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 November, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRR No. 251 of 2014
1. Kishore Kumar S/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village
Chutaipaath, Police Station Samri, Distt. Balrampur (C.G.),
Chhattisgarh
2. Kuldeep Ram S/o Mani Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village
Chutaipaath, Police Station Samri, Distt. Balrampur (C.G.),
Chhattisgarh
3. Ajay Ram S/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village
Chutaipaath, Police Station Samri, Distt. Balrampur (C.G.),
Chhattisgarh
4. Murari Ram S/o Ramvriksha Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village
Chutaipaath, Police Station Samri, Distt. Balrampur (C.G.),
Chhattisgarh
---- Applicants
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, through the Police Station Bagicha, Distt.
Jashpur C.G. , Chhattisgarh
---- Respondent
For Applicant :- Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent :- Mr. Shakti Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 04-11-2022
1) This criminal revision has been filed questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment affirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Bagicha, District Jashpur in Criminal Case No.69/2012 dated 19-06-2013 whereby the applicants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 6/10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation 2 Act, 2004 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- to each of the applicants and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 02-02 months each.
2) As per prosecution story, complainant Ganesh Yadav (PW-9) lodged a written complaint (Ex.-P/14) before the police station stating that on 27-01-2012 at about 06:00 a.m., the present applicants were transporting agricultural cattle for purposes of their slaughter. On such complaint the police registered Crime No.20/2012 for offence punishable under Section 4, 5, 8 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004.
3) The police after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet against the present applicants. The learned trial Court framed charges for offence punishable under Section 6/10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents. The statement of the accused/applicants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded. The applicants examined one defence witness, namely, Ramvilas (DW-1). The learned trial Court after completion of the trial convicted the present applicants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this order.
4) The applicants preferred appeal before the learned lower appellate Court and same has been dismissed vide judgment dated 24-03-2014 confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
5) Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the cattle were being taken for 3 slaughter, thus, the ingredients of Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 have not been proved beyond reasonable doubts against the present applicants. He further submits that most of the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. Ganesh Yadav (PW-9) who lodged the FIR, has not supported the case of the prosecution either in examination-in-chief or in cross-examination and even then he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. The applicants have been convicted only on the basis of the evidence of Kapil Dev (PW-2). In support thereof, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Shankar and another Vs. State of C.G., 2014(4) C.G.L.J. 239. Lastly, he prays for acquittal of the present applicants.
6) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submission made by Mr. Pandey and submits that 27 cattle were being transported for slaughter by the present applicants. The applicants failed to produce any authentic documents to show purchase of these cattle, whereas, the applicants as well as the defence witness both have stated that the cattle were purchased for personal use. He further submits that there is concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below and thus, he prays for dismissal of the criminal revision.
7) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8) It would be advantageous for disposal of this case to go through the provisions of Section 6 and 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004:- 4
"6. Prohibition on transport of agricultural cattle for slaughter. - (1) No person shall sell, or transport or offer to transport or cause to be transported any Agricultural cattle from any place within the state to any place within the State or outside the State, for the purpose of its slaughter in contravention of the provisions of this Act or with the knowledge that it will be or is likely to be, so slaughtered.
(2) Whenever any person transports or causes to be transported in contravention of provisions of sub-
section (1) any agricultural cattle as specified in the Schedule, such vehicle or any conveyance used in transporting such animal alongwith such agricultural cattle shall be liable to be seized by such authority or officer as the State Government may appoint in this behalf.
(3) The vehicle or conveyance so seized under sub-section (2) shall not be released by the order of the court on bond or surety before the expiry of six months from the date of such seizure or till the final judgment of the court, whichever is earlier and such vehicle shall also be liable for confiscation at the end of the trial.
10. Penalties. - Whoever contravenes or attempt to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of Section 4, 5 and 6 shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or with both"
5
9) To bring home the charge for offence punishable under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004 the following facts are necessary to be proved:-
1. The agricultural cattle must be transported or caused to be transported from one place to any place within the State or outside the State for purposes of slaughter,
2. There must be some apprehension or knowledge that it will be or is likely to be slaughtered.
10) Rajkumar (PW-1) and Dhanavaram (PW-3) are seizure witnesses, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution.
11) Kapil Dev (PW-2) has stated in para 1 of the examination-in-chief that the applicants were taking cattle towards Jharkhand, but no enquiry was made by the officials. He further stated that in front of the police, the applicants have admitted that they were taking the cattle to Jharkhand for slaughter. In para 3 of the cross- examination, he has again stated that the admission by the applicants was made in front of the police.
12) Umesh Kindo (PW-4) has stated that the cattle were medically examined by him and they were fit and healthy. Tapeshwar Yadav (PW-5) was given custody of some cattle. Tirath Lal Yadav (PW-
6) has not supported the case of prosecution. Devlal Bhagat (PW-7) has been declared hostile. Ganesh Yadav (PW-9) who lodged the written complaint (Ex.-P/14) and on whose behest the FIR (Ex.-P/15) was registered, has not supported the case of prosecution. He has only admitted signatures over those documents. In cross-examination he has denied the contents of 6 the statement given under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. to the police. Rajesh Yadav (PW-10) has not supported the case, but he has not been declared hostile. ASI, L.R. Chouhan (PW-11), registered the FIR, prepared the seizure memo (Ex.-P/1 to Ex.P.-/4), recorded the statement of witnesses and arrested the applicants. Head Constable, Bala Kispotta (PW-12) has registered the zero FIR. Manoj Kumar Bhagat (PW-13) has submitted the zero FIR on the basis of which numbered FIR (Ex.- P/21) was recorded.
13) Ramvilas (DW-1) has stated that he and the applicants are residents of same village and they had purchased the cattle for agricultural purposes as 27 cattle were purchased by 9 persons.
14) From the evidence, none of the witnesses have stated that the cattle were being transported to Jharkhand for slaughter which is sine qua non to hold a person guilty for offence punishable under Section 6 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004. The interesting part of the case is that the person who lodged the FIR has not supported the case of prosecution and he has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. Doctor Umesh Kindo (PW-4) has categorically deposed that the physical condition of the cattle were good and healthy. The Courts below have convicted the present applicants relying on the evidence of Kapil Dev (PW-2) who has not stated anything against the present applicants, the only statement which he has made is that the present applicants admitted before the police officers that the cattle were taken to Jharkhand for slaughter and that is not sufficient for sustaining conviction of the applicants for offence 7 punishable under Section 6/10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004.
15) Considering the entire material available before this Court, I am of the view that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the offence alleged against the present applicants beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, extending the benefit of doubt, present applicants are acquitted from the charges under Section 6/10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004. The criminal revision is allowed. The fine amount deposited by the applicants, if any, shall be refunded to them. Their bail bonds are discharged.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Aadil