Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dudha And Ors vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:11019) on 5 March, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:11019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 323/2014
1. Dudha S/o Shri Jaliya Meena, aged 49 years, R/o Hend, P.S.
Sallopat, District Banswara.
2. Mohan S/o Shri Soma Meena, aged 26 years, R/o Jhankar,
P.S. Sallopat, District Banswara.
3. Prabhu S/o Shri Thanu Meena, aged 36 years, R/o Gadediya,
P.S. Sallopat, District Banswara.
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas K. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order 05/03/2024 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 05.03.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) & Addl. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Case No.40/2010 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as under :
Offence U/s 5, 6 R/w 8 of Bovine Act : One year's R.I. and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo fifteen days' S.I. Offence U/s 9 of Bovine Act : Six months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo seven days' S.I. Offence 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act : Fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo three days' S.I. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. (Downloaded on 05/03/2024 at 08:43:24 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:11019] (2 of 4) [CRLA-323/2014] Brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2008 complainant Ramesh Chandra Sharma gave a written report to SHO Police Station Suhagpura, stating therein that on 25.05.2008 at about 7.00 a.m. Kailash Gurjar informed him that on Gautameshwar Road in Panawala Ghata a Truck bearing Number CH-6677 is standing, in which 25 calves were loaded out of which one calf was lying dead in the truck. In the said truck, Madan, Prabhdu, Mohan, Dudha and Tita were sitting and upon inquiry, they informed that they were taking the calves to Gujarat.
The police registered the FIR for offence under Sections 3, 5, 8(2), 9 Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration of Export) Act, 1995 and 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant. Thereafter, the charge for offence under Sections 3/8, 5/8, 6/8, 9 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and Section 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, was framed by the trial court against the appellants, who denied the charges and claimed trial.
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 05.03.2014 convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Sections 5, 6 read with Section (Downloaded on 05/03/2024 at 08:43:24 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:11019] (3 of 4) [CRLA-323/2014] 8(2) and 9 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and Section 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, as mentioned earlier.
At the threshold, counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction but it is submitted that since the occurrence relates back to year 2008 and the appellants have so far suffered a sentence of about seven days, out of total sentence of one year's R.I., therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants for the aforesaid offence may be reduced to the period already undergone by them. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1914, Niyamat Ali Nemu v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1915, Sher Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(1) WLN 156 (Raj.) On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellants nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellants.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2008 and the appellants have so far undergone a period of seven days (Downloaded on 05/03/2024 at 08:43:24 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:11019] (4 of 4) [CRLA-323/2014] incarceration, out of the total sentence of one year R.I. so also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial. Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the appellants have remained behind the bars for considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 5, 6 Read with 8(2) of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and 11 of Animal Cruelty Act is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants while maintaining the fine amount as imposed by the trial court.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the appellants conviction and sentence for offence under Section 5, 6 Read with 8(2) of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, the sentence awarded to appellants is reduced to the period already undergone, however the amount of fine is hereby maintained. Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo one months' SI. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 202-Ishan/-
(Downloaded on 05/03/2024 at 08:43:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)