Back
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
M.R.VERMA
STATE OF H.P. - Appellant
Versus
KARIM BAKSH - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 531 of 1996
Decided On : 09/22/1999
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT - SECTION 11 - INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 429 - ACQUITTAL OF ACCUSED - DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS AND CONSEQUENTIAL RECOVERY NOT COGENTLY ESTABLISHED - INJURED BULL FOUND NEAR ACCUSED'S JHUGI NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE - APPEAL DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
An appeal was filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused had injured a bull, which later succumbed to its injuries. The accused were arrested based on suspicion, and disclosure statements were made by them, leading to the recovery of weapons allegedly used in the offense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and that the disclosure statements made by the accused were not voluntarily made and could not be relied upon. The court also found that the consequential recovery of weapons was suspicious and that the injured bull was found near the accused's Jhugi, but there were other Jhugies in the vicinity, so this circumstance was not helpful to the prosecution.
Issues: 1. Whether the disclosure statements made by the accused were voluntarily made and could be relied upon. 2. Whether the consequential recovery of weapons was valid and could be used as evidence. 3. Whether the fact that the injured bull was found near the accused's Jhugi was sufficient evidence to convict the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the disclosure statements made by the accused were not voluntarily made and could not be relied upon because they were made in the presence of police officers and there was evidence of resentment among the Hindus due to the injuries caused to the bull. 2. The court held that the consequential recovery of weapons was suspicious because the marginal witnesses did not support the prosecution's version of events and the recovery memo did not mention the owner of the Jhugi from which the weapons were recovered. 3. The court held that the fact that the injured bull was found near the accused's Jhugi was not sufficient evidence to convict the accused because there were other Jhugies in the vicinity.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused.
M. R. Verma, J.:- This is an appeal against the judgment dated March 23,1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una whereby the respondent/accused (here-after referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of the charges under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sectmn 11 of Ate Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. preferred by the State .
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on June 18, 1994 PW-1 Sarwan Kumar saw a bull lying in injured condition near the Jhugies of the accused. PW-2 Ajay Kumar, PW-3 Ravinder Kumar and PW-5 Shri Gogi also saw the bull in the injured condition. The bull was removed from that place in a Tractor to a nearby well. P W-1 Sarwan Kumar made statement Ext PA which was recorded by PW-10 Tilak Raj, H.C. On the basis of this, formal FIR Ext. PW-10/A was registered in Police Station, Una. During the course of investigation, the accused were arrested by the police on the basis of suspicion. While in custody, accused Jasin made a disclosure statement Ext. PB about having kept one Chapar and one Sumba’ in the Jhugi of accused Karim Baksh and pursuant to the said statement, he got. these weapons recovered vide memo. Ext. PW-12/B. Accused Karim Baksh also made a disclosure statement that after having washed Chapar and Sumba, he had given them to accused Jasin for being kept concealed.
3. The antemortem examination and autopsy of the injured bull, who had succumbed to the injuries, was conducted by PW-4 Brij Mohan Sohal, Vetenary Officer and his report about the antemortem examination is Ext PW-4/A and the autopsy findings are Ext PW-4/B. On being satisfied of the commission of the offence complained against the accused, the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Una submitted the charge-sheet against the accused which came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. Accusations under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act were put to them. They denied the same. The prosecution, to prove the accusations against the accused, examined as many as 12 witnesses.
4. The accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied their involvement in the commission of the offence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused, however, did not lead any defence.
5. The learned trial Magistrate found the accused not guilty and accordingly acquitted them, hence the present appeal.
6. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records.
7. Be it stated that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. PW-1 Sarwan Kumar, PW-2 Ajay Kumar, PW-3 Ravinder Kumar and PW-5 Gogi who had seen the bull lying injured, have not stated anything in their statements on the basis of which even an inference about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence may be drawn.
8. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution relied on the disclosure statements Exts. PB and PC respectively made by accused Jasin and Karim Baksh and the alleged consequential recover- of Chapar Ext P-l and Sumba Ext P-2 at the instance of accused Jasin from a Jhugi".
9. Disclosure statement Ext PB has been allegedly made by the accused i in the presence of Parmod Kumar and Chander Kumar. Parasod Kumar has been examined as P W-6. He has not supported the prosecution version about the alleged disclosure statement having been made by accused Jasin. Chander Mohan has been examined as PW-11. He supports the prosecution version about making of the aforesaid statement by accused Jasin in his examination-in-chief. PW-12 Krishan Chand, S.I. has recorded this statement and in his statement he has stated so. However, the statements of PW-11 Chander Mottan and PW-12 Krishan Chand cannot be said to be free from any suspicion P W-11 Chander Mohan has stated that he was called to the Police St
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
