The court upheld the conviction for cruelty and illegal transportation of cattle while overturning the conviction for attempt to cheat due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT

These two appeals arise out of a common judgment delivered on 31.07.2023 by Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Sessions Trial No.15/2018 whereby appellant Ansar of Criminal Appeal No. 10083/2023 and appellants Fazlu, Mohsin, Mukhtiyar, Navinoor and Sabir of Criminal Appeal No.10121/2023 were all convicted of the offence of Section 11(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 , Section 6A read with Section 9 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam read with Section 34 IPC , Section 420 read with Section 511 IPC and Section 429 IPC and were sentenced to fine of Rs.50/- for the offence of Section 11(d) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 , 3 years rigorous imprisonment for rest of the offence proved. They were also sentenced to fine of Rs.7000/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively for the last three offences mentioned above with a default clause.

2. On perusal of record, it becomes pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 05.08.2024, Criminal Appeal No.10121/2023 has already been dismissed qua appellants Fazlu, Mohsin and Mukhtiyaar as they did not surrender before the trial Court by that date and were also not given the benefit of suspension of sentence, therefore, their appeal was found to be “as not maintainable” and dismissed. In the light of this fact, Criminal Appeal No.10083/2023 is being decided qua appellant Ansar and Criminal Appeal No.10121/2023 is being decided only in reference to appellants Navinoor (A4) and Sabir (A5).

3. Brief facts relevant for the decision of these criminal appeals are that on 07.02.2018, at around 15:35 p.m., a container-vehicle bearing registration no. HR-55-K-7798 was intercepted on Indore-Icchapur road in the jurisdiction of Police Station Shahpur, district Burhanpur; on search 63 cow progeny were found inside the container, which were being transported for the purpose of slaughter; they were stifling in the container and were not able to move; for these reasons, two of them died in their journey; further, a fake number plate was used by hiding the original number plate with an intent to deceive the police on check-post barrier. According to prosecution, appellant Navinoor was the driver of this vehicle while other two appellants, namely Ansar and Sabir, were present in the vehicle; it is also claimed that a Swift Dezire car bearing registration No. MP-09-CP-3122 was piloting this container for the purpose of doing reiki and co-convict Fazlu, Mohsin and Mukhtiyaar were travelling in that car, however, their appeal is not pending before this Court; after interception, the container was unloaded and the cattle were medically examined; mobile phones, number plates, documents of vehicles etc. were seized and for care/protection, the cattle were handed over in temporary custody of Gaushala. FIR at Crime No.79/2018 was registered and the matter was investigated. After conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and trial was held against six persons while Mohsin, son of Rashid, aged 19 years, was declared absconding by the trial Court. Under the impugned judgment all the six persons facing trial were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid and were acquitted of the charge of Sections 467/34, 468/34 and 471/34 of IPC .

4. Grounds raised in both the appeals are more or less same, therefore, they are being discussed under this common para; it is claimed that the impugned judgment is bad in law and against the facts; it was ignored that independent witnesses Bharat (PW-1) and Kishore (PW-8) have given statements contradictory to each other; even the police witness Assistant Sub-Inspector Surendra Singh (PW-7) has not supported the case of prosecution in its entirety and had to be declared hostile; there is contradiction in the statements of Sub-Inspector Ram Asre Yadav (PW-10) and Ram Babu (PW- 11) on the fact who amongst them had prepared the documents; no evidence regarding tower location and call details record (CDR) was produced by prosecutio