The prosecution must establish the connectivity and complicity of the accused with the crime, and the burden of proof under Section 13A of M.R Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 is crucial in determining the guilt of the accused.

ORDER

1. The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the order dated 21/11/2019 passed by 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2015 whereby learned appellate Court while affirming the conviction under section 9 of M.P. Gowvansh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004 and sentenced to undergo one year RI along with fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation and under Section 11(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act (17 times) and sentenced for each count Rs.20/- with default stipulation passed by the Court of JMFC, Seoni in Criminal Case No.3311/2012 vide judgment dated 06/02/2015, dismissed the appeal filed by the applicant.

2. The case of prosecution against the applicant, in short, is that Sub Inspector Shivcharan Tekam received information on telephone that from Village Chukta one truck coming with badly filled cattle and carrying the cattle for slaughter house at Nagpur. On receiving information, Sub Inspector along with other Police personnel went for checking and saw that one truck bearing registration No.M.R20-G-6631 was coming from village Chutka, however, on seeing the Police, driver of the truck trying to flee away from the spot and drove the truck speedily, however, when chased by the Police, the truck was stopped at the Tiraha and the driver fled away after abandoning the truck. When truck was inspected, it was found that 17 cattle were badly filled and out of which 16 were cows and one was ox. Police seized cattle, truck and also found that kerosene smell was coming out from the fuel tank of the truck and registered CrimeNo.198/2012 at Police Station, Kanhibada. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 4, 6, 9 of MR Govansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, 2004, Section 11 (d) of Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act, 1960, Section 66 read with Section 192 of Motor Vehicles Act and also under Section 3 read with Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.

3. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties vide order dated 06/05/2014 framed charges against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 6, 6A, 6B read with Section 9 of M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, Section 11(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act and Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act. The applicant denied for the charges and pleaded to be tried. Learned trial Court recorded the evidence of Shivcharan Tekam (PW-1), Anand Kumar Hanwat (PW-2), Dr. Santosh Kumar Daheriya (PW-3), Rohindra Varshekar (PW-4), Mahesh Prasad Jandhela (PW-5). In examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the applicant denied for all the incriminating evidence and circumstances came against him and pleaded defence that he is innocent and has falsely been implicated, however, did not produce any defence witness.

4. Learned trial Court after hearing both the parties delivered judgment on 06/02/2015 and found proved the offence under Section 9 of MR Govansh Vadh Pratished Adhiniyam, Section 11(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to the Animals Act and sentenced the applicant as aforementioned, however, acquitted him for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 7 of Essential Commodities Act.

5. The applicant against that conviction and sentence, preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court registered as Criminal Appeal No. 17/2015 under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Learned appellate Court after hearing both the parties vide judgment dated 21/11/2019 affirming the conviction and sentence dismissed the appeal.

6. The applicant being aggrieved by that affirmation of conviction and sentence has preferred this criminal revision on the ground that the judgment of the Court of JMFC dated 06/02/2015 is illegal and contrary to law. Learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Stateme