The court may reduce a sentence based on the duration of incarceration and the mental anguish suffered by the appellant, while maintaining the imposed fine.

ORDER :

1. 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:

2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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 v. State of Rajasthan reported in 2016(1) WLN 156 (Raj.)

9. 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 t