Hurmat Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sunil Pawar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Dinesh Arora, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the State. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Hurmat and Sarsmal were nominated as accused in FIR No. 295 dated 12.12.1989 registered at Police Station Punhane under Sections 5 & 8 of Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). Prosecution has examined PW.3 Constable Heera Singh and PW.4 Hoshiar Singh as an eye-witnesses who on secret information had reached at the place of occurrence and caught accused red handed while selling beef and soliciting customers in loud voice. Dr. Surinder Kumar, Veterinary Surgeon, Pw.1, has tendered his report Ex.PA to say Criminal Revision No.738 of 1992 2 that the meat was of a slaughtered Cow. There was a blood and meat of Cow sticking on weighing scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two arguments before me. Firstly, both the witnesses are Constables of Police and no other independent witness was examined, which is necessary under Section 9-A(c) of the Act. Second argument raised is that there are discrepancies, contradictions and improvements in the testimony of the witnesses. The learned counsel was asked that a revisional Court will not be in a position to re-evaluate and re-appreciate the witnesses in view of the fact that both the Courts below have placed implicit reliance upon them. Furthermore, once two Courts below found the testimony of official witnesses as trustworthy and held that they inspire confidence. In view of the law laid down in various judicial pronouncements, examination of independent witness cannot be insisted upon. Faced with these observations, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in alternate that he will confine his prayer to reduction of sentence. It has been stated before me that trial Court has sentenced the petitioners to six months rigorous imprisonment. Learned counsel states that as per the Act, sentencing Section prescribe that either it can be sentence of imprisonment or fine or both. No minimum sentence has been prescribed. It has been stated that the occurrence took place on

12.12.1989 and a period of 18 years is going to lapse. It has been further stated that the petitioners have undergone about 23 days of their actual sentence of six months. Criminal Revision No.738 of 1992 3 Taking into account that the petitioners are facing protracted trial for the last 19 years and ends of justice will be met in case sentence of petitioners is reduced to already undergone. Hence, the sentence of petitioners is reduced to already undergone. With these modifications , the present revision petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge February 26, 2008 “DK”