Chunna & Anr. v. State of Haryana
Case at a glance
Outcome
Acquitted
petition is accepted and the accused are acquitted of the charge
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Deepak Garg, Advocate on behalf of Mr. C.B. Goel, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Manmohan Sikka, Assistant Advocate General Haryana for the State KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Present revision petition has been filed by Chunna son of Ramjani and Asgar son of Mamman alias Sikander resident of village Reethak, tehsil F.P.Jhirka, District Gurgaon. Petitioners were tried in case FIR No. 32 dated 10.02.1990 registered at Police Station Nagina under Section 3/8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. Case of the prosecution is that Sabha Ram, Head Constable along with other police officials was present on patrolling duty on 10th February, 1990 when a secret information was received by him that the present accused have taken a cow for slaughter and if the raid is conducted, they will be in a position to apprehend the accused.
It is stated that he along with the police party reached at the spot, where the petitioners were found cutting beaf of a slaughtered cow with the help of kulhari and Chhuri. It has been further stated that when they saw the Criminal Revision No.819 of 1996 2 police party coming, accused were successful and escaped from the spot. On the spot, cow skin and kulhari were found. From the spot beaf along with bones, two ears of white colour, one tail of white colour and one head having 1 ½ - 1 ½ horns of a cow were recovered. Veterinary Surgeon, after examination opined the same belonging to the cow. Report under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was submitted. Thereafter, charge was framed against the petitioners. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution produced Tej Ram, constable as PW-1; Kartar Singh Constable as PW-2; Jai Pal Veterinary Surgeon as PW-3 and Sabha Ram Head Constable as PW-4. The prosecution case rests upon three police witnesses.
It is further stated that during the investigation, on a disclosure statement made by accused Chunna, one cow skin was recovered and also kulhari was found in possession vide recovery memo No. PW4/B. Mr.Deepak Garg appearing for the petitioner has made two submissions before me. His first submission is that the accused were not known to the witnesses earlier and prosecution has miserably failed to establish identity of the accused. It has been further stated that the disclosure statement cannot be relied upon as same was not witnessed by independent witness and no independent witness has been examined. I find merit in the submissions of Mr.Garg. The present petitioners were arrested after 17 days of the occurrence. No particulars or features or marks of identity have been stated in the FIR. Mr.Garg has stated that regarding the time of the reaching of investigating agency, there is a discrepancy.
Operative part
Somewhere it is stated that the police party reached at 5.30 a.m. whereas, at that time sun rose at 7 a.m. and in the darkness, witnesses were not in a position to identify the accused. In the present case, no test identification parade was conducted. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the identity Criminal Revision No.819 of 1996 3 of the accused petitioners. Furthermore, no explanation has been given as to how the police party knew the name of the accused. Even though, through the secret information, the names of the accused have been mentioned, it was necessary for the police party to establish that those persons who ran away from the spot were the same persons, whose names were reported to them in secret information. Disclosure statement and the recovery of kulhari and cow skin will not itself establish a guilt of the accused. Furthermore, cross-examination of the independent witnesses, in whose presence the recovery was effected, was necessary so that it could be held that the recovery has not been planted upon the petitioners. In view of the discussion made above, the present revision petition is accepted and the accused are acquitted of the charge. February 22, 2008. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is accepted and the accused are acquitted of the charge
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 — ss. 3, 8; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 313.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 22 Feb 2008. The bench was KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.