RISALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Aulakh appearing for the petitioner at the outset has stated that he will not contest the conviction of petitioner as two courts below are against him and finding of fact has been recorded. He has very fairly stated that there is no irregularity and infirmity, which can be pointed out by him. He has stated that entire edifice of the prosecution has been built that the marginal deficiency, in the standard prescribed no offence is made out, is argument, which is no longer available, as same stand qver-ruled by hon'ble the Apex Court. He has further stated that even he can not fortify the argument that independent witness has not been examined rather he has been given up as won over.

(2.) BOTH the Courts below have held that pw1 Moti Ram and PW2 Dr. H. R. Ghosal have no animus against the petitioner. Learned counsel has stated that it has come in the cross-examination of the witnesses that milk was stirred and was made homogeneous, even though this fact was not stated in the complaint. Therefore, he says that he will make an alternative prayer that sentence of petitioner should be reduced as in the present case occurrence pertains to year 1983 and petitioner has also suffered a protracted trial of more than 24 years. He has further stated that in the last 24 years, the petitioner has committed no other offence. He has further stated that petitioner is now going to be around 60 years of age and no useful purpose will be served by sending him behind the bars, it has been further stated that even though in defence a basis was laid that milk was not for sale but was being carried by the petitioner to the house of DW1 Prem who required the same for some function but the same could not be proved before the two Courts below.

(3.) TAKING the totality of circumstances in view of the fact that this Court since 1997 has held that speedy trial is a right vested in the accused and protracted trial in itself is a special reason to reduce the sentence.