RAMESHWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Sec. 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-appellants against the judgment dtd. 15/11/2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Parbatsar, District Nagaur in Sessions Case No. 20/2012 whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as under :--

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the SHO, Police Station, Parbatsar District Nagaur and lodged an FIR No. 83/2012 at the Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur for the offences under Ss. 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as Rs.the Act of 1995') alleging inter alia that upon information of illegal transport of bovines, a team was constituted and upon search of a truck, appellants were found along with 10 oxes, out of which one had died. After investigation, the appellants and one Bhagwana Ram were charge-sheeted. It is revealing that during trial, the said Bhagwana Ram had passed away. After taking cognizance and framing of charges, as many as 9 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were tendered into evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Thereafter, the accused were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed innocence and after affording opportunity of hearing to the Counsel for the parties, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused appellants for the offences under Sec. 5/8 of the Act of 1995 and sentenced them to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default in payment of fine to further undergo 2 months simple imprisonment.

(3.) At the outset the learned Counsel Shri Rakesh Matoria, representing the appellants submitted that he does not wish to press the finding of guilt and judgment of conviction but seeks benevolence on the point of sentence. He further states that in Para No. 26 of the judgment impugned it has been mentioned that it was the first offence of the appellants and they have no other criminal incident antecedent; the appellants are poor villagers neither they were owner of the vehicle nor of the cattles; they were the employees and not the owner of the truck used for the commission of offence, reformative approach should be adopted to reform or rehabilitate them by reducing their sentence to period they have undergone.