2011 Supreme(SC) 1102

2011 (8) Supreme 168
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Asok Kumar Ganguly and Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ.
State of Haryana — Appellant(s)
versus
Rajmal & another — Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 2203 of 2011
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.372/2011)
Decided on : 25-11-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Exercise of revisional jurisdiction of High Court in upsetting concurrent finding of the facts cannot be accepted when it was without any reference, to the evidence on record or to the finding entered by the trial court and appellate court regarding the evidence in view of the fact that revisional jurisdiction is basically supervisory in nature.
2. An illegal search does not vitiate the seizure of the article.

Headnote:Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 - Section 8 - Conviction of accused persons by Trial Court for slaughtering cows in their house-Appeal-Dismissed by Appellate Court-Revision-Allowed by High Court-Appeal- Trial Court found that there was cogent evidence on record to show that both accused persons were known to witnesses from before and they ran away, by scaling the wall, after seeing the police party- Trial Court also recorded a finding of fact that accused persons had not made out any case of animosity of official witnesses against them- Appellate forum, also recorded that P.W.-3/Investigating Officer had clearly stated that he knew accused persons because he had apprehended them in another case - Said statement of P.W.-3 was not challenged in cross-examination- Nor the accused persons ever questioned that witnesses knew them prior to the date of the occurrence- The appellate forum also recorded that accused persons have not suggested that they were falsely implicated in the case- No error committed by Courts below by proceeding on material collected, as a result of seizure of materials- The factual conclusion of High Court held contrary to evidence on record- It could not be held that interference by High Court on question of identification of accused persons in facts of the case was either proper or legally sustainable- Appeal allowed (Paras 7 to 10)

        Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 – Sections3,4, 8 - Conviction of accused persons by Trial Court for slaughtering cows in their house-Appeal-Dismissed by Appellate Court-Revision-Allowed by High Court-Appeal-Perusal of Section 3 and Section 4 together, shows that person contravening Section 3 cannot put up a defense that act of slaughter was being done in a place, of which he was not the owner or in respect of which he did not have conscious possession- Slaughter of Cows, subject to exceptions under Section 4, in any place, is prohibited under Section 3 and penalty for doing so is provided under Section 8- High Court’s finding that guilt of accused persons had not been proved in the absence of proof of their ownership or conscious possession of house where slaughter took place, was a finding which was de-hors said Act and was clearly not legally sustainable- Slaughter of Cows is clearly prohibited under Section 3, subject to exceptions in Section 4- The case of accused persons was not covered under exceptions in Section 4- No such defense was ever taken-Impugned order of High Court held legally not sustainable-Appeal allowed (Paras 21 to 23)

       Facts of the Case :

        A.Accused persons two in number were convicted herein in the instant case by Trial Court for slaughtering cows in their house. Appeal against conviction was Dismissed by Appellate Court. However Revision thereagainst was Allowed by High Court.

        B. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        A. Trial Court found that there was cogent evidence on record to show that both accused persons were known to witnesses from before and they ran away, by scaling the wall, after seeing the police party. Trial Court also recorded a finding of fact that accused persons had not made out any case of animosity of official witnesses against them. Appellate forum, also recorded that P.W.-3/Investigating Officer had clearly stated that he knew accused persons because he had apprehended them in another case. Said statement of P.W.-3 was not challenged in cross-examination. It could not be held that interference by High Court on question of identification of accused persons in facts of the case was either proper or legally sustainable.

        B. Slaughter of Cows, subject to exceptions under Section 4, in any place, is prohibited under Section 3 and penalty for doing so is provided under Section 8. High Court’s finding that guilt of accused persons had not been proved in the absence of proof of their ownership or conscious possession of house where slaughter took place, was a finding which was de-hors said Act and was clearly not legally sustainable. Slaughter of Cows is clearly prohibited under Section 3, subject to exceptions in Section 4- The case of accused persons was not covered under exceptions in Section 4. No such defense was ever taken. Impugned order of High Court was held legally not sustainable. Appeal was allowed.