SULAIMAN SHAH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The eight petitioners before me have been convicted under Section 429, read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and were originally sentenced to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment each. On appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur, the sentence of the petitioners was reduced from one year to six months.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that on 24 May 1936, a bull was killed at Mauza Koili. This bull was branded as a bull on the occasion of the shradh of Nantun Jha's father Mauje Jha of Koili. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the petitioners before me took part in the slaughtering of the bull. Mr. Yasin Yunus, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, relying upon some reported oases, has urged that as the bull was not the property of any person, its killing could not amount to mischief and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to an acquittal. He has referred to the case in Romesh Chuder Sannyal V/s. Hiru Hondal (1890) 17 Cal 852, in which it was held that a bull dedicated and set at large at the shradh of a Hindu in accordance with religious usage is not an object within the meaning of Section 295. In that case it was further held that the bull did not come within the description of moveable property mentioned in Secs.373 and 403 or property within the meaning of Section 425, Indian Penal Code, and could not be the subject therefore, of theft, criminal misappropriation or mischief.

(3.) The next case referred to is Queen-Empress V/s. Bandhu (1886) 8 All 51. That was a case under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, where it was held that the bull which was set at large by some Hindus according to Hindu usage at the time of performing funeral ceremonies could not be said to be property within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code. The same view was expressed in a subsequent decision of the Allahabad High Court in Queen-Empress V/s. Nihal (1887) 9 All 348, but a different note has been struck in a decision of the Madras High Court in Queen-Empress V/s. Nalla (1888) 11 Mad 145, where their Lordships of the Madras High Court held that a bull dedicated to an idol and allowed to roam at large is not fera bestia and, therefore, res nullius, but, prima facie, the trustee of the temple has the rights and liabilities attaching to its ownership. Their Lordships observed as follows: If, on the evidence, it appeared that the animal was turned loose after dedication to the temple and that it was actually or inferentially accepted as so dedicated on behalf of the temple, then though the animal was allowed to be at large, free from all control, it would, prima facie, be the property of the temple.