JUMME KHAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order of conviction of the petitioner for an offence under Sections 5 and 8 of the Cow Slaughter Act. The petitioner has been convicted by the learned trial Magistrate for an offence of selling of beef in the area of village Barka Allimpudinpur amidst Kikar trees and sentencing him to undergo S.I. For one and half years and to pay time to Rs. 3000.00 for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the Act for contravening the provisions of Section 5 of the Act.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 1-1-1994 the Police party headed by Sadhu Ram HC, consisting of Jai Pal HC and constable Raten Singh was present at bus stand when an informer came there and informed them that Jumme Khan son of Manhori, resident of village Burka Alimodinpur is selling beef in the northern side of his village amidst Kikar trees at the rate of Rs. 4.00 per Kilogram. He would give beef equal to the weight of the wheat also. The police was informed that if raid was conducted seller could be cought red handed. Rukka was sent through constable Fateh Singh to the police station. Raid was conducted and after recording of formal FIR the police started investigation. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173, Cr. P.C. was presented. the prosecution examined HC Jai Pal Singh P.W. 1, Sadhu Ram HC P.W. 3 and Illak Raj HC as P.W. 4. The prosecution also produced Dr. Parmod Kumar, veterinary Surgeon as P.W. 2 and produced report of beef examination Ex. P.W. 2 P.W./A. The accused in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P.C. denied the prosecution allegations. The learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court found that the prosecution had been able to prove the sale of beef by the petitioner in the area of village Barka Alimudinpur and thus, he has committed an offence under Section 5 punishable under Section 8 of the Act.

(3.) In the present revision petition the petitioner has disputed the finding recorded by the Courts below on the ground that the informant who has given the information has not been produced and no Test Identification Parade was held, therefore, the identity of the petitioner as the person having selling beef is not proved. In support to his argument, the petitioner placed reliance on Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar (1994) 3 Rec Cri R 1. It may be noticed that the petitioner was not apprended at the spot. It was further argued that no independent witness has been joined by the prosecution. The prosecution has not disclosed the name of the persons who have refused to join the investigation. In support of his argument he has relied upon 1997 (4) RCR 401 and Chhabil Das v. State of Haryana (1998) 1 Rec Cri R (Cri) 133.