RAWAT RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant have been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh by his judgment dated 9th September 1985. The appellants Rawatram, Kalooram and Shakoorkhan were convicted for the offence under Section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') and each of them was sentenced to five years' RI and to a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 6 months' RI. The appellant Hardeep was convicted of the offence under Section 414, IPC and was sentenced to 1 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default of payment of fine to furrher undergo three months simple imprisonment.

(2.) ON the report of RamsinghJat, on 31 -1 -1985 case under Section 2 of the aforesaid Act was registered and it was stated by him that he had seen the accused persons namely Rawatram, Kalooram and Shakoorkhan removing the skin of the two cows, one male and female calf. Earlier these animals were seen alive. After the arrest of the accused Rawatram, at his instance and on his information, the skins of the four animals were recovered from the possession of the accused Hardeep. All the skins, which were said to have been sold by the accused Rawatram to him, were wet wrapped in salt. The accused Hardeep was arrested. After investigation, all the four accusedpersons were sent up for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the accused for the respective offences and recorded the statements of PW 1 Bhansingh, PW 2 Ramsingh, PW 3 Ved Prakash, PW 4 Dr. B.D. soni and PW 5 Tarachand, Investigating Officer. The statements of the accused persons were reerded, in which they denied the prosecution case. One witness Najar Ram was examined by the accused Hardeep. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of the prosecution evidence, found the three accused -persons guilty of the offence under Section 414, IPC, The version of the accused Hardeep was not believed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the SHO asked Najarram to deliver the skins and at the instance of Najarram, the four skins were delivered to him from the godown of Najarram.

(3.) IT may be stated that from the statements of PW 2 Ramsingh, PW 3 Ved Prakash and PW 4 Dr. B.D. Soni, it is amply proved that the four animals were killed. All the four accused -persons were found on the spot. In this connection, there are the statements of Ramsingh, and Ved Prakash. From their testimony, the offence under section of the Act is brought home to the accused Rawatram Kalooram and Shakoorkhan. So far as the accused Hardeep is concerned, the recovery has been affected by the Investigating Officer. It was proved that the four skins were recovered from the possession of Hardeep. The version given by the accused does not appear to be true, As regards the identity of the skins, it may be stated that the accused produced the skins said to have been sold by the accused Rawatram. Looked in this light, in my opinion, it is proved that he concealed the skins of those animals, which were killed. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence awarded to the principal accused -persons is excessive. All the three accused persons are in custody and have served out the sentence since 1 -2 -1985 In my opinion, 2 years imprisonment would be adequate in the circumstances of the case. As regards, the appellant Hardeep he had remained in custody for 10 days, since 11 -10 -1985. It would not be proper now to send him back behind the bars.