REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2203 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.372/2011)

State of Haryana ....Appellant(s)

- Versus -

Rajmal & another ....Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This  Criminal  Appeal  is  directed  against  the  

judgment and order dated 20.04.2010 of the High  

Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Revision  

No.669/2000, whereby the High Court acquitted the  

respondents-accused  persons  (hereinafter  “the  

1

accused  persons”)  from  all  the  charges  levelled  

against  them  under  Section  8  of  the  Punjab  

Prohibition  of  Cow  Slaughter  Act,  1955  

(hereinafter “the Act”).  By this impugned order,  

the  judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  Sub-

Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur and the  

appellate  order  passed  by  the  Addl.  Sessions  

Judge, Gurgaon were set-aside by the High Court in  

revision.

3. The accused persons were convicted under Section 8  

of  the  Act  and  sentenced  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for a period of one year by the Court  

of  Sub-Divisional  Judicial  Magistrate,  Ferozepur  

vide  judgment  dated  14.09.1998  in  Crl.  Case  

No.23/96. On Appeal, this order of conviction and  

sentence  was  confirmed  and  upheld  by  the  

Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Gurgaon  vide  order  

dated 01.06.2000 in Criminal Appeal No.20/98.  

2

4. The facts and circumstances, which are relevant,  

are as under:

a)According to the prosecution, on 01.01.1996 Head  

Constable  Satyabir/p.w.-3  (hereinafter  “the  

Investigating  Officer”)  received  a  secret  

information  that  the  accused  persons  were  

slaughtering cows in their house and if any raid  

was conducted, the accused persons could be caught  

red-handed. Consequently the investigating officer  

along with Head Constable Bir Singh/p.w.-2 formed a  

raiding party and raided the house of the accused  

persons.

b)On  seeing  the  Police  party,  both  the  accused  

persons by scaling the wall, fled away from their  

house by taking advantage of the darkness.

c)However the investigating officer found 70 kgs of  

fresh beef, one skin of cow, one axe, two blood  

stained  daggers  and  four  weak  and  infirm  cows.  

Those  were  seized  and  taken  into  custody  vide  

recovery  memo.  Thereafter  ruqa  was  sent  to  the  

3

police  station,  on  the  basis  of  which  FIR  was  

registered and the case was investigated.

d)Thereafter the accused persons were arrested and  

charged under Section 8 of the said Act.

e)At  the  Trial,  P.W.-3/investigating  officer  and  

P.W.-2/Bir Singh, who were eye-witnesses, supported  

the case of prosecution and categorically deposed  

that accused were known to them from before and on  

seeing the police party, they ran away from the  

place by scaling the wall.

f)The accused persons did not lead any evidence in  

their defence.

g)After the appreciation of evidence, vide judgment-

dated  14.09.1998  the  Trial  Court  convicted  the  

accused persons under Section 8 of the said Act and  

sentenced  each  of  them  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for a period of one year.

h)The  accused  persons  challenged  the  aforesaid  

conviction and sentence, by filing an appeal before  

4

the  Additional  Sessions  Judge,  being  Criminal  

Appeal no. 20 of 1998.

i)By  an  order-dated  01.06.2000  the  Additional  

Sessions  Judge,  after  a  re-appreciation  of  

evidence,  confirmed  the  order  of  conviction  and  

sentence passed by the Trial Court.

j)Against that order, the accused persons preferred a  

revision before the High Court.

k)By impugned order-dated 20.04.2010 the High Court  

allowed the revision and set aside the order of  

conviction of the accused persons.  

5. The  High  Court  in  its  revisional  jurisdiction  

while  reversing  the  concurrent  finding  of  the  

Courts below indicated the following reasons:

I. No independent witness from the locality was  present at the time of conducting raid.

II. No evidence has been led to prove that the  accused persons were the owners of the house.

5

III. It has also not been established that the  accused  persons  were  in  the  exclusive   possession of the house and as such they   cannot be said to be in conscious possession  of the house.

IV. The accused persons were not identified and  it is the prosecution case that the accused   

persons fled away by scaling the wall and by  taking advantage of the darkness.

6. We are not satisfied with the reasoning of the  

High Court, as none of the grounds put forward by  

the  High  Court  in  the  impugned  judgment  is  

sustainable. If we take up the last ground first,  

it is clear that the aforesaid conclusion of the  

High Court, being a conclusion on pure questions  

of fact, is against the evidence on record.

7. The Trial Court has found that there is cogent  

evidence on record to show that both the accused  

persons were known to the witnesses from before  

and  they  ran  away,  by  scaling  the  wall,  after  

seeing  the  police  party.  The  Trial  Court  also  

recorded a finding of fact that accused persons  

6

have not made out any case of animosity of the  

official witnesses against them.

8. In  the  appellate  forum,  the  Sessions  Judge  has  

also  recorded  that  P.W.-3/Investigating  Officer  

has  clearly  stated  that  he  knew  the  accused  

persons because he had apprehended them in another  

case and the said statement of the P.W.-3 was not  

challenged  in  cross-examination.  Nor  has  the  

accused persons ever questioned that the witnesses  

knew them prior to the date of the occurrence. The  

appellate forum also recorded that accused persons  

have  not  suggested  that  they  were  falsely  

implicated in the case.

9. In view of this admitted factual position, this  

Court  cannot  accept  the  reasoning  of  the  High  

Court in its revisional jurisdiction whereby the  

High  Court  found  that  in  the  absence  of  

independent local witness the prosecution case is  

not worthy of credence. The factual conclusion of  

7

the  High  Court  is  contrary  to  the  evidence  on  

record.

10. In  this  connection,  it  may  be  noted  that  in  

upsetting  the  concurrent  finding  of  the  courts  

below,  about  the  identification  of  the  accused  

persons, the High Court has not given any reason.  

11. In  State  of  A.P. vs.  Pituhuk  Sreeinvanasa  Rao  [(2000)  9  SCC  537]  this  Court  held  that  the  

exercise  of  the  revisional  jurisdiction  of  the  

High Court in upsetting concurrent finding of the  

facts cannot be accepted when it was without any  

reference, to the evidence on record or to the  

finding entered by the trial court and appellate  

court regarding the evidence in view of the fact  

that  revisional  jurisdiction  is  basically  

supervisory in nature.  

12. It has been also held by this Court in Amar Chand  Agarwala vs. Shanti Bose and another [AIR 1973 SC  799] that the revisional jurisdiction of the High  

8

Court  under  Section  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  

manifest error on a point of law resulting in a  

flagrant  miscarriage  of  justice.  [para  20,  page  

804 of the report]

13. Going by the aforesaid principles, 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 is either proper or  

legally sustainable.

14. Now let us examine the first question on which the  

High Court has interfered, namely the legality of  

the search procedure.  

15. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of  

Radha Kishan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1963  SC 822] while construing similar provision in the  

Cr.P.C. of 1898 held that an illegal search does  

not vitiate the seizure of the article. The only  

9

requirement of law in such cases is that the Court  

has  to  examine  carefully  the  evidence  regarding  

the  seizure.  But  beyond  this  no  further  

consequences  ensues.  (para  4,  page  824  of  the  

report)

16. This principle is being consistently followed by  

this  Court  and  by  different  High  Courts  since  

then. Herein if we follow the aforesaid principle,  

we  do  not  discern  any  error  committed  by  the  

Courts  below  by  proceeding  on  the  material  

collected,  as  a  result  of  the  seizure  of  

materials.

17. The other two points on which the High Court chose  

to interfere, namely the ownership of the house or  

the conscious possession of the house as a valid  

requisite before the accused persons could be held  

guilty under Section 8 of the said Act, is clearly  

based on a misreading of the clear provision of  

the Act.

1

18. The  said  Act,  which  has  been  enacted  to  give  

effect  to  the  provisions  of  Article  48  of  

Directive Principle of State Policy and which is  

still in force, prohibits cow slaughter in Section  

3 thereof in following terms-

“3.  Prohibition  of  cow  slaughter -  Notwithstanding anything contained in any other  law for the time being in force or any usage or  custom  to  the  contrary,  no  person  shall  slaughter or cause to be slaughtered or offer  or cause to be offered for slaughter any cow in  any place in Punjab:  

Provided that killing of a cow by accident  or in self defence will not be considered as  slaughter under the Act.”

19. Under Section 4 there are certain exceptions to  

section 3. Those exceptions are as under:

“4.  Exceptions.  –  (1)  Nothing  in  section  3  shall apply to the slaughter of a cow –  

(a)whose  suffering  is  such  as  to  render  its  destruction  desirable  according  to  the  certificate  of  the  Veterinary  Officer  of  the  area  or  such  other  Officer  of  the  Animal  Husbandry  Department as may be prescribed; or

1

(b)which is suffering from any contagious  or infectious disease notified as such  by the Government; or

(c)which is subject to experimentation in  the  interest  of  medical  and  public  health research by a certified medical  practitioner  of  the  Animal  Husbandry  Department.

(2) Where it is intended to slaughter a cow  for  the  reasons  specified  in  clause  (a)  or  clause  (b)  of  sub-section  (1)  it  shall  be  incumbent for a person doing so to obtain a  prior permission in writing of the Veterinary  Officer of the area or such other Officer of  the  Animal  Husbandry  Department  as  may  be  prescribed.”

20. The expression “slaughter” is defined in Section  

2(e) of the Act, which is as follows:

“2(e) - “slaughter” means killing by any method  whatsoever and includes maiming and inflicting  of physical injury which in the ordinary course  will cause death.”

1

21. If we read Section 3 and Section 4 together, it is  

clear  that  the  person  contravening  Section  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. Slaughter of Cows, subject  

to exceptions under Section 4,  in any place, is  

prohibited under Section 3 and penalty for doing  

so is provided under Section 8.

22. The High Court’s finding that the guilt of the  

accused persons has not been proved in the absence  

of  proof  of  their  ownership  or  conscious  

possession  of  the  house  where  slaughter  took  

place, is a finding which is de-hors the said Act  

and is clearly not legally sustainable. Slaughter  

of the Cows is clearly prohibited under Section 3,  

subject to the exceptions in Section 4. The case  

of the accused persons is not covered under the  

exceptions in Section 4. No such defense was ever  

taken.

1

23. Therefore the impugned order of the High Court is,  

with  respect,  legally  not  sustainable.  We  

therefore are unable to accept the reasons of the  

High Court. The appeal is allowed. The order of  

the  High  Court  is  set-aside  and  that  of  the  

learned Sessions Judge is affirmed.

.......................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

.......................J. New Delhi (JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR) November 25, 2011

1