Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 499 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Elamdeen

2012-02-22

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2012
Hon'ble CHAUHAN, J.—The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 20th October, 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jalore (Raj.) whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused respondent for offences under Sections 3, 5, 6, 8 & 9 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.04.2009, Kasim Khan (P.W.1) had submitted a report (Ex.P/6) at Police Station Sanchore wherein he had claimed that at 2:00 AM he was informed by a secret informant that a truck, bearing registration No.RJ-19-GA-7715, coming from Gudhamalani on NH No.15 is loaded with calves which are being transported to Gujarat for being slaughtered. On the basis of this information, the police party started checking the traffic on N.H. 15. At 2:15 AM, they saw a truck bearing the said registration number. When the police signalled to the driver to stop the truck, the driver of the truck increased the speed of the truck and tried to flee. Subsequently, when the truck was intercepted, two persons jumped from the truck and escaped. The driver was caught by the police. He informed his name as Iliyas. From the truck, sixty-four calves were discovered, out of which, two calves had died due to the suffocation. Subsequently, after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused-respondents for offences under Sections 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Act. 3. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and submitted twenty-two documents. The accused respondent Elamdeen examined himself as a witness, but did not submit any evidence. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondents. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this court. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. According to the witnesses, sixty-four calves were recovered from the truck, out of them, two calves had died. According to the post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Ramesh Chaudhary (P.W.4) both the calves had died due to suffocation. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. According to the witnesses, sixty-four calves were recovered from the truck, out of them, two calves had died. According to the post-mortem report prepared by Dr. Ramesh Chaudhary (P.W.4) both the calves had died due to suffocation. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has vehemently argued that the prosecution could not establish the identity of the both the accused respondents as the persons who jumped out of the truck and who had made their escape good, when the truck was intercepted. While Kasim Khan (P.W.1) claimed that both the accused-respondents are the persons who jumped out of the truck, he could not identify them in the Court. Similarly, Mangilal (P.W.2) failed to identify the accused-respondents. Thus, the very identity of the accused-respondents has not established. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused respondents. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and examined the impugned order. 7. Needless to say, the prosecution has to establish its case through cogent and logical evidence. The prosecution was duty bound to establish that both the accused-respondents are the very persons who had jumped out of the truck and had escaped. However, neither Kasim Khan (P.W.1), nor Mangilal (P.W.2) have been able to identify the accused respondents in the Court. Similarly Chandra Prakash (P.W.3) has also admitted that he cannot identify the accused-respondents. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of the accused-respondents. Merely because the prosecution has proved that out of sixty-four calves, two calves had expired, the said evidence is not sufficient to connect the accused respondents to the alleged offence. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused-respondents. 8. Since the learned Judge has give cogent reasons for acquitting the accused-respondents, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment. The criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.