Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1872 (RAJ)

Sonu alias Mohit Arora v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-02

MANOJ KUMAR GARG

body2019
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. The instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant through jail against the judgment dated 25.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 11/2016 (138/2016), by which, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence under Section 3/8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-; and in default of payment of tine to further undergo 2 months simple imprisonment. The appellant was also convicted for offence under Section 429 IPC to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-; and in default of payment of fine to further undergo 1 month simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 17.06.2016, a written complaint was filed by one Vinod Kumar S/o Het Ram before the Police Station Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar stating therein that a cow came near Ravi Chowk then one person came following the cow who brought jaggery in his pocket and gave it to the cow. Thereafter, he tried to feed the jaggery to another cow standing nearby but the cow did not consume. At that time the complainant along with Kamlesh, Subhash, Shiv and other people standing there had some doubt. When they took the jaggery in hand, it was giving bad smell. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant tried to kill the cow. The police registered a case and started investigation. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner Sonu @ Mohit as well as co-accused Satpal for offence under Section 429, 120B IPC and Section 3/8 of the Bovine Animal Act before the court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No. 1, Sri Ganganagar. Thereafter, the case was committed for trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar where the charges of the case was framed against the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses in all and so many documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. No witness was examined from the defence side. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses in all and so many documents were exhibited. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. No witness was examined from the defence side. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganganagar vide judgment dated 25.10.2017 acquitted the co-accused Satpal but convicted the present appellant for the offences as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant at the threshold submits that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant but submits that the appellant has already undergone a total period of 3 years 4 months and 8 days out of the total sentence of 5 years imprisonment. He further submits that the occurrence relates to the year 2016 and during this period, the appellant has already suffered mental agony and trauma. Therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant may be reduced to the period already undergone by him. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. A report received from the Superintendent, Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor verifying the fact that the appellant has already served a total sentence of 3 years 4 months and 8 days upto 01.07.2019. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case. 8. The occurrence took place in the year 2016 and after conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 3/8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act as well as 429 1PC and a total sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment was awarded to him. Taking into account over-all facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the appellant has already served major part of the sentence and the incident relates to year 2016, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court for offence under Section 3/8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act is reduced from 5 years R.I. to 3 years R.I. and the amount of fine is reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to 2,000/-. 10,000/- to 2,000/-. Likewise, the substantive sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 429 IPC is also required to be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant and the amount of fine deserves is reduced from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 2000/- because the appellant has already suffered the mental agony and trauma since 2016. 9. As a result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 3/8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act and Section 429 IPC, the substantive sentence awarded to him for offence under Section 3/8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal Act is hereby reduced from 5 years rigorous imprisonment to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and the amount of fine from Rs. 10,000/- to 2,000/-. Further, the substantive sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 429 IPC is reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant and the amount of fine from Rs. 5000/- to Rs. 2000/-. The appellant is inside the jail. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount of fine, in total Rs. 4000/- as directed above, before the trial court within a period of two months from today. In default of payment of fine, he will suffer 15 days additional simple imprisonment for each offence.