STATE OF HARYANA v. RAJMAL & Anr.

The prosecution case was that on receipt of secret information that the accused persons were slaughtering F cows in their hoUse, a raid was conducted. On seeing the police party, both the accused persons scaled the wall and fled away from their house by taking advantage of darkness. The Investigating officer found 70 Kgs. of fresh beef, one skin .. of cow, one axe, two blood stained G daggers and four weak and infirm cows. The accused persons were convicted under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The first appellate authority upheld the order of the trial court. The High Court in its revisional jurisdiction reversed the concurrent finding of the courts below on the ground that no H STATE OF HARYANA v. RAJMAL AND ANR. 349 independent witness from the locality was present at the A time of conducting raid; that no evidence was led to prove that the .accused persons were the owners of the house; that it was also not established that the accused persons were in the exclusive possession of the house and as such they cannot be said to be in conscious B possession of the house; and that the accused persons were not identified. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1. None of the grounds put forward by the High Court in the impugned judgment was sustainable. The trial court found that there was cogent evidence on record to show that both the accused persons were known to the witnesses from before and they ran away, D by scaling the wall, after seeing the police party. The trial court. also recorded a finding of fact that accused persons did not rpake out any case of animosity of the official witnesses against them. The first appellat~ court also recorded that P.W.-3/lnvestigating Officer has clearly E stated that he knew the accused persons because he had apprehended them in another case and the said statement of the P.W.-3 was not challenged in cross examination. Nor the accused persons ever questioned that the witnesses knew them prior to the date of the F occurrence. The appellate forum also recorded that accused persons had not suggested that they were falsely implicated in the case. In view of this admitted factual position, this Court cannot accept the reasoning of the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction whereby the G High Court found that in the absence of independent local witness the prosecution case is not worthy of credence. The factual conclusion of the High Court was contrary to the evidence on record. (Para 6-9] [354-E-H; 355-A-C] H ~350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A B

#2. In upsetting the concurrent finding of the courts below, about the identification of the accused persons, the High Court had not given any reason. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised, only in an exceptional case, when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law resulting in a f!agrant miscarriage of justice. Going by the said principles, it cannot be held that the interference by the High Court on the question of identification of the accused persons in c facts of the case was either proper or legally sustainable. [Para 10, 12, 13] [355-D-G-H; 356-A]