STATE OF HARYANA versus RAJMAL AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 347 · Decided: 25-11-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 347 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
RAJMAL AND ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2203 of 2011) 
NOVEMBER 25, 2011 
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND JAGDISH SINGH 
KHEHAR, JJ.) 
Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955: 
s.8- Conviction under, by courts below, reversed by High 
Court on grounds of absence of independent witness from the 
locality at the time of conducting raid, absence of evidence 
A 
B 
c 
to prove that the accused persons were the owners of the 
house and were in exclusive possession of the house where 0 
raid was conducted and non-identification of accused - On 
appeal, held: None of the grounds put forward by High Court 
were sustainable - Trial court found that there was cogent 
evidence to show that both the accused persons were known 
to the witnesses from prior to the date of incident and they ran E 
away, by scaling the wall, after seeing the police party and that 
accused persons did not make out any case of animosity of 
the official witnesses against them - The first appellate court 
also recorded that Investigating Officer had clearly stated that 
he knew the accused persons because he had apprehended 
them in another case and this statement was not challenged F 
in cross-examination - In view of the admitted factual position, 
reasoning of High Court in its revisional jurisdiction that in th'e 
absence of independent local witness the prosecution case 
was not worthy of credence cannot be accepted - In upsetting 
the concurrent finding of the courts below, about the G 
identification of the accused persons, High Court had not 
given any reason - The revisional jurisdiction of High Court 
uls.439 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised, only in an exceptional case, 
when there is a glaring defect in the procedure or there is a 
347 
H 
348 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C~R. 
A manifest error on a point of law resulting in a flagrant 
miscarriage of justice - It cannot be held that the interference 
by the High Court on the question of identification of the 
accused persons in facts of the case was either proper or 
legally sustainable - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -
B: s. 439 - Revision. 
Search and ,seizure - Held: An illegal search does not 
vitiate the seizure of the article. 
ss.3, 4, 8 -
Ownership of the place where act of 
C 
slaughtering done - Requirement of - Held: Reading of s.3 
and s.4 together would show that the person contravening s.3 
cannot put up a defense that the act of slaughter was being 
done in a place, of which he is not the owner or in respect of 
which he does not have the conscious possession -
D Slaughter of Cows, subject to exceptions uls.4, in any place, 
is prohibited uls.3 and penalty for doing so is provided u/s.8 
- The case of the accused persons was not covered under 
the exceptions in s.4 - No such deFense was ever taken -
Therefore, order of acquittal by the High Court was le•gally not 
E sustainable. 
Words and phrases:· Word 'slaughter' - Meaning of 
The prosecution case was that on receipt of secret 
information that the accused persons were slaughtering 
F 
cows in their hoUse, a raid was conducted. On seeing the 
police party, both the accused persons scaled the wall 
and fled away from their house by taking advantage of 
darkness. The Investigating officer found 70 Kgs. of fresh 
beef, one skin .. of cow, one axe, two blood stained 
G daggers and four weak and infirm cows. The accused 
persons were convicted under Section 8 of the Punjab 
Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The first appellate 
authority upheld the order of the trial court. The High 
Court in its revisional jurisdiction reversed the concurrent 
H finding of the courts below on the ground that no 
STATE OF HARYANA v. RAJMAL AND ANR. 
349 
independent witness from the locality was present at the A 
time of conducting raid; that no evidence was led to 
prove that the .accused persons were the owners of the 
house; that it was also not established that the accused 
persons were in the exclusive possession of the house 
and as such they cannot be said to be in conscious B 
possession of the house; and that the accused persons 
were not identified. The instant appeal was filed 
challenging the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. None of the grounds put forward by the 
High Court in the impugned judgment was sustainable. 
The trial court found that there was cogent evidence on 
record to show that both the accused persons were 
known 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.