Convictions under the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act require clear and cogent evidence, and mere transportation of cattle without documentation does not suffice to establish intent for slaughter.

JUDGMENT

1. These two Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 17/8/2007 in C.C.No.1765/2005 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Madikeri and its confirmation judgment and order dtd. 12/2/2014 in Crl.A.No.71/2007 on the file of the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, wherein the petitioners have been convicted for the offences under Ss. 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 of the Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 (for short "Act") and Sec. 379 read with Sec. 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

2. The petitioners are the accused before the Trial Court and the appellants before the Appellate Court. Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 9/6/2005 in the early morning at about 2.30 a.m., when the petitioners were transporting the cattle to Kerala State through the lorry bearing its No.KA.12.A.6336, the lorry was intercepted at Nelli Hudikeri junction by PW.1 and his staff and they seized the vehicle and also took the cattle to the custody and arrested the petitioners. After investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined, in all, 9 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P9. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioners for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred these revision petitions seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.

5. Heard Shri Abdulla I.T., learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rahul Rai.K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court require to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have failed to notice that, none of the owners of the said cattle have filed complaint regarding theft of cattle. In the absence of the said complaint, it would not be appropriate to arrive at a conclusion that, the petitioners have committed theft of cattle. It is also submitted that, there are no independent witnesses to support the case of the prosecution in respect of seizure of the cattle. However, the Courts below acted upon the evidence of official witnesses, who are considered as interested witnesses and the Courts below convicted the petitioners which is erroneous and illegal.

8. It is further submitted that, the Courts below ought to have appreciated the evidence of PW.4, PW.5 and DW.1 properly, before arriving at a conclusion that, the petitioners are found guilty of the offences. PW.4 is the witness to Ex.P1, he has not identified the petitioners. PW.5 also witness to Ex.P1 has not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the identity of the petitioners. Both these witnesses have not supported the seizure of cattle and identity of the petitioners. Making such submission, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petitions and set aside the concurrent findings of conviction.

9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader (for short 'HCGP') justifying the concurrent findings, submitted that, the Courts below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record held that, the petitioners are found guilty of the offences stated supra.

10. It is further submitted that, the evide