Back
2009 Supreme(J&K) 279
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.
Ab. Ahad & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
State & Anr. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 23/2006
Decided On : 01 July, 2009
Advocate For Appellant: Sunil Sethi
Advocate For Appellant: Ravi Dogra
Advocate For Respondent: A.H. Qazi
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove intentional acts and the method of killing in establishing guilt under Section 298-A of RPC, emphasizing the importance of evidence and witness credibility.
Headnote:
298-A - Slaughtering of Cow - RPC Section 298-A/34 - Section 298-A of RPC, Section 39 of RPC, Definition of 'voluntarily', 'slaughter', and 'killing' - The court discussed the definitions of 'voluntarily', 'slaughter', and 'killing' in the context of Section 298-A of RPC and emphasized the importance of proving intentional acts and the method of killing in establishing guilt. The court highlighted the lack of evidence proving the accused's intentional slaughtering of the cow and the contradictory statements of witnesses, leading to the dismissal of the prosecution case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted and sentenced for slaughtering a cow based on a report lodged by Abdul Gaffar. However, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, as witnesses provided contradictory statements and lacked evidence of intentional slaughtering by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt due to contradictory witness statements and lack of evidence linking the accused to the slaughtering of the cow.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the lack of evidence proving intentional slaughtering by the accused, contradictory witness statements, and the absence of proof linking the accused to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving intentional acts and the method of killing in establishing guilt under Section 298-A of RPC. It highlighted the lack of evidence and contradictory witness statements as grounds for dismissing the prosecution case.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the prosecution case, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, and discharged the accused from their bail bonds.
Brief Facts:
2. Abdul Gaffar-PW1, lodged a written repot with SHO P/S Laran against five persons, namely, Abdul Gani, Mohammad Sadiq and Mohammad Rafiq including the appellants, that a cow was slaughtered by them in the house of Qamar-ud-Din S/O Ramzan Dar R/O Barachar Mandi, Poonch. It was also alleged in the report that the informer had asked his son to keep watch and ward in order to notice the activities of the accused. The said report set police in motion. FIR came to be lodged against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 298-A/ 34 of RPC. It is also alleged that the Investigating Officer along with other police officials reached on spot, conducted search of the house of Qamar-ud-Din, seized dressed flesh of the cow weighing 30 Kgs along with skull, legs and skin along with tail, Dagger, Toka, a log and a blood stained piece of koil wood. It is further allegation that the appellants were present at that point of time in the said house and arrested. The police recorded the statement of the witnesses, prepared seizure memos, completed other formalities and submitted final report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. against the appellants in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch and it committed the case to the court of Sessions Judge, Poonch.
3. Trial court framed charged against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 298-A/34 of RPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. Prosecution examine nine witnesses, namely, Abdul Gufar, Abdul Rashid, Abdul Salam, Krishan Lal MHC, Constable Jugjeet Singh, SPO Surinder Singh, Zahoor-ud-Din, Dr. J. K. Ved and I.O Mohammad Yaqoob Manhas out of ten cited in the calendar. Prosecution has not examined PW6--Javed Iqbal. The statements of the accused also came to be recorded.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 298-A/ 34 of RPC vide impugned judgment/ orders.
6. It is necessary to give brief resume of the witnesses herein as under:
7. PW1-Abdul Gaffar, has stated that he made a report-EXPW-AG to the police about slaughtering of cow by five persons, police started investigation and seized dressed flesh of the cow and other articles, details of which are given in seizure memos--EXPW-AG1, AG2 and AG3. In cross examination, he stated that he has specifically recorded the fact of slaughtering of cow by the five persons in the house of Qamar-ud-Din but has not mentioned the name of the person(s) who had slaughtered the cow because he had not seen any person slaughtering/butchering the cow.
8. PW2-Abdul Rashid had deposed that his father asked him to watch the activities of the accused when he left for lodging the report and when he returned, accused had slaughtered the cow and were peeling off the skin. He has stated that he has seen the accused slaughtering the cow. Police has seized flesh, skull, legs, skin, tail, blood stained earth, Toka and wooden logs. He has also admitted that there is enmity between him, his father and accused. He further deposed that he told his father that five persons were slaughtering the cow.
9. PW3-Retired Master Abdul Salam, shown as witness to occurrence and seizure memos, has not supported the prosecution case, came to be declared as hostile. During his cross examination conducted by PP, has deposed that the informer has lodged report against the accused/ appellants due to past rivalry. He has specifically stated that he was not present when police came on spot.
10. PW4-Krishan Lal, HC, shown as witness to occurrence, has deposed that he accompanied the Investigating Officer who conducted search of the house of Qamar-ud-Din and during search
