State of Rajasthan vs Jabbar Hussain

Vijay Bishnoi, J.—This criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by the State Government against the order dt. 04.03.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Bhilwara (for short ''the trial court'' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 14/2012, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences punishable under Secs. 5/8, 6/8 and 3/8 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration On Export) Act, 1995 (for short ''the Act of 1995'' hereinafter). Brief facts of the case are that complainant Mitthulal submitted a report (Ex. P/5) to the SHO, Police Station, Bijaulia to the effect that on that day at about 1:30-2:00 A.M., when he, along with his friends Heeralal and Shashikant, was going towards Aroli by his car, near Greed, one LP Truck bearing No. RJ.27-GA 2576, which was being driven at a high speed, crossed them, and near Kesarpura Turn, after breaking the divider, it turned turtle at wrong side. It was alleged in the complaint that when the complainant and his friends neared the locale, some persons, leaving the vehicle, were running, they were chased by Heeralal and Shashikant. It was also alleged that there were large number of bovine animals in the truck and some of them were died.

On this complaint, the Police registered a case under Sec. 279 IPC and Sections 3, 5, and 8 of the Act of 1995. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-respondent for the offences punishable under Secs. 279 IPC and Sections 3, 5, and 8 of the Act of 1995 before the Court of Civil Judge, Bijaulia, from where, it was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhilwara and ultimately to the trial Court.

During trial, co-accused Shakir has died and, therefore, proceedings against him were dropped. The charges were read over to the accused-respondent, which he denied and claimed for trial.

The prosecution, in support of its case, had examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents. Statement of the accused-respondent was recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC.

The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused-respondent beyond reasonable doubt, even the identification of the accused-respondent had not been proved by the prosecution and therefore, the trial Court, while giving benefit of doubt, vide its order impugned dt. 04.03.2013, acquitted the accused-respondent from the offences punishable under Secs. 5/8, 6/8 and 3/8 of the Act of 1995.

The learned Public Prosecutor has contended that though the prosecution had produced cogent and reliable evidence, on the basis of which, the guilt of the accused-respondent is proved, yet the learned trial Court wrongly acquitted the accused-respondent for the offences under Secs. 5/8, 6/8 and 3/8 of the Act of 1995. It is further contended that the eye-witnesses PW. 3 Heeralal and PW. 6 Shashikant stated that they chased two persons, caught hold them, and on asking, they disclosed their names as Sakir and Jabbar, however, they pushed them aside and fled away, but the learned trial Court has disbelieved the said statements of the eye-witnesses in illegal manner.

Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the order impugned.

The learned trial Court has taken into consideration the statement of eye-witness PW. 3 Heeralal and found that the said eye-witness admitted before the Court that at the time when he saw the accused-respondent, there was darkness and since the incident is of two years'' old, he could not recognize the accused persons. The learned trial Court has also observed that though PW. 6 Shashikant stated that he can recognize the accused-respondent but simultaneously admitted that on account of darkness, he could not see the accused-respondent. When both the eye-witnesses admitted before the Court that on account of darkness, it was not possible for them to see the accused-respondent, the identity of the said accused has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dt. 04.03.2013 passed by the learned trial Court. Consequently, the leave to appeal is rejected.