Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Magan And Anr vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:10949) on 5 March, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Garg
Bench: Manoj Kumar Garg
[2024:RJ-JD:10949]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 391/2014
1. Magan S/o Shri Khetiya Meena, aged 44 years, R/o Chhapra,
P.S. Sallopat, District Banswara.
2. Tita S/o Shri Badra Meena, aged 59 years, R/o Chhapara,
P.S. Sallopat, District Banswara.
(At present lodged at District Jail Pratapgarh)
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas K. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
05/03/2024
Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants
under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated
05.03.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) & Addl. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, in Sessions Case
No.40/2010 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced
the appellants as under :
Offence U/s 5, 6 R/w 8 of Bovine Act : One year's R.I. and a
fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo
fifteen days' S.I.
Offence U/s 9 of Bovine Act : Six months' R.I. and a fine of
Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo seven
days' S.I.
[2024:RJ-JD:10949] (2 of 5) [CRLA-391/2014]
Offence 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act : Fine of
Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo three days'
S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2008 complainant
Ramesh Chandra Sharma gave a written report to SHO Police
Station Suhagpura, stating therein that on 25.05.2008 at about
7.00 a.m. Kailash Gurjar informed him that on Gautameshwar
Road in Panawala Ghata a Truck bearing Number CH-6677 is
standing, in which 25 calves were loaded out of which one calf was
lying dead in the truck. In the said truck, Madan, Prabhdu, Mohan,
Dudha and Tita were sitting and upon inquiry, they informed that
they were taking the calves to Gujarat.
The police registered the FIR for offence under Sections 3, 5,
8(2), 9 Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter &
Regulation of Temporary Migration of Export) Act, 1995 and 11 of
Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act and started investigation. After
investigation, the police filed challan against the present appellant.
Thereafter, the charge for offence under Sections 3/8, 5/8, 6/8, 9
of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and
Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and
Section 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, was framed by the
trial court against the appellants, who denied the charges and
claimed trial.
[2024:RJ-JD:10949] (3 of 5) [CRLA-391/2014]
During the course of trial, the prosecution examined eleven
witnesses and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter,
statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide
impugned judgment dated 05.03.2014 convicted and sentenced
the appellant for offence under Sections 5, 6 read with Section
8(2) and 9 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter
and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and
Section 11 of Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act, as mentioned
earlier.
During the course of arguments, it has been informed by the
counsel for the appellants that appellant No.2-Tita has expired on
05.02.2024. Therefore, the present appeal to the extent of
appellant No.2-Tita is hereby dismissed as abated.
So far counsel for the appellant No.1 Magan is concerned, at
the threshold, counsel does not challenge the finding of conviction
but it is submitted that since the occurrence relates back to year
2008 and the appellant No.1 has so far suffered a sentence of
about seven days, out of total sentence of one year's R.I.,
therefore, it is prayed that the substantive sentence awarded to
the appellant No.1-Magan for the aforesaid offence may be
reduced to the period already undergone by him. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment
of this Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. State of Rajasthan
reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1914, Niyamat Ali Nemu v.
State of Rajasthan reported in 2013(4) CJ(Cri.) (Raj.) 1915, Sher
Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(1) WLN 156 (Raj.)
[2024:RJ-JD:10949] (4 of 5) [CRLA-391/2014]
On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
The learned PP submitted that there is neither any occasion to
interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant No.1
nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case.
I have perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as
defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding
conviction of the accused-appellant No.1-Magan.
Undisputedly, the incident relates back to the year 2008 and
the appellant No.1-Magan has so far undergone a period of seven
days incarceration, out of the total sentence of one year R.I. so
also suffered the mental agony and trauma of protracted trial.
Thus, looking to the over-all circumstances and the fact that the
appellant No.1-Magan has remained behind the bars for
considerable time, it will be just and proper if the sentence
awarded by the trial court for offence under Sections 5, 6 Read
with 8(2) of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter &
Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and 11 of
Animal Cruelty Act is reduced to the period already undergone by
the appellant No.1-Magan while maintaining the fine amount as
imposed by the trial court.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining
the appellant's No.1-Magan conviction and sentence for offence
under Section 5, 6 Read with 8(2) of Rajasthan Bovine Animal
(Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration or
Export) Act, 1995 and 11 of Animal Cruelty Act, the sentence
awarded to appellant No.1-Magan is reduced to the period already
[2024:RJ-JD:10949] (5 of 5) [CRLA-391/2014]
undergone, however the amount of fine is hereby maintained.
Three months' time is granted to deposit the fine amount before
the trial court. In default of payment of fine, the appellant No.1-
Magan shall undergo one months' SI. The appellant No.1 is on
bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged.
The record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
201-Ishan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
