Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 21 (PNJ)

Sahabuddin v. State of Haryana

2004-01-07

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Sahabuddin and Ramjan, the petitioners herein, were charged under Section 8 of the Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for contravening the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. They stand convicted vide impugned judgment dated 20.4.1999 passed by the learned trial Court for the said charge and have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 months each. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned trial Court, they preferred an appeal and the same also stands dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 27.1.2000 passed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, this revision. 2. I have heard Mr. Ramesh Chahal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bijender Dhankar, AAG, Haryana. With their assistance, I have also gone through the records of the case. 3. Mr. Chahal has assailed the impugned judgment on merits with regard to Ramjan petitioner No. 2 only whereas for Sahabuddin petitioner No. 1, learned counsel for the petitioners without assailing the impugned judgments on the merits, has prayed for reduction in the quantum of sentence on the ground that petitioner No. 1 has already undergone the substantive sentence of 9 months and 15 days out of the total awarded sentence of 15 months. Learned counsel then contends that this petitioner is not a previous convict and not involved in any case. 4. Developing his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as Ramjan petitioner No. 2 is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to fix his identity. Learned counsel contends that the only evidence collected by the prosecution against Ramjan petitioner is the statement of Sahabuddin his co-accused at the time of his arrest. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn my attention to ruqa Ex.PW2/C which is the basis of the registration of the FIR. My attention has also been drawn to the statement of the witnesses recorded during the trial. Learned counsel basing his arguments on the aforesaid submissions, pray for acquittal of Ramjan petitioner. 5. Learned State counsel has controverted the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that both the petitioners were present at the time when the police party had raided their place and simply that Ramjan petitioner had fled away from the spot would not be a ground to disbelieve the story qua him. 5. 5. Learned State counsel has controverted the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that both the petitioners were present at the time when the police party had raided their place and simply that Ramjan petitioner had fled away from the spot would not be a ground to disbelieve the story qua him. 5. After hearing the rival contention of both the sides, I am of the view that Ramjan petitioner deserves acquittal. 6. I have minutely gone through Ex.PW2/C (ruqa) on the basis of which FIR was lodged. It is in the hand of Om Parkash Head Constable. It is in vernacular. It has been categorically stated that when the police party reached the spot, one of the persons had fled away from the place taking the advantage of Kikkar trees and the person who was apprehended at the spot disclosed his name as Sahabuddin son of Sardar Khan, whereas the person who had fled away, his name was disclosed as Ramjan son of Goonga. Certainly this amounts to a statement of accused against the co-accused which is not admissible. Besides this the prosecution has no evidence to connect Ramjan petitioner. I am doubtful about his involvement in the present case as the prosecution has not been able to fix his identity to the hilt. The benefit of doubt has to be extended to him. Consequently, the conviction recorded by both the courts below qua Ramjan petitioner is set aside. He stands acquitted of the charge. 7. So far as Sahabuddin petitioner No. 1 is concerned, the submission has been made by the learned counsel qua quantum of sentence only. Admittedly, this petitioner has already undergone 9 months and 15 days. After the dismissal of the appeal on 27.1.2000, his sentence was suspended by this Court on October 12, 2000. The occurrence relates to the year 1996. He has already faced the agony of protracted trial of long seven years. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the ends of justice would be adequately met if the sentence of 15 months as awarded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned Appellate Court is reduced to the period already undergone by him. Ordered accordingly. 8. The net result is that the present revision is partly allowed. Ordered accordingly. 8. The net result is that the present revision is partly allowed. Ramjan petitioner stands acquitted of the charge whereas with the modification in the quantum of sentence as indicated above, the present petition qua Sahabuddin petitioner No. 1 stands dismissed on merits. Ramjan petitioner No. 2 shall be discharged of his surety/bail bonds forthwith. Petition partly allowed.