news details |
|
|
| HC set-aside the conviction of ‘cow slaughtering’ and acquitted the accused | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, July-21: Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir of J&K High Court Jammu Wing in a criminal appeal filed by Abdul Ahad and Shabir Ahmed who were convicted and sentenced by the Sessions Judge Poonch on December 12, 2006 in a cow slaughtering case, has allowed the appeal and set-aside the conviction and sentenced of both the appellants.
In the approved for reporting judgment Justice Mansoor Ahmed Mir after hearing Sr. Adv Sunil Sethi with Adv Ravi Dogra for the appellants and AAG AH Qazi appeared for the State has raised various points and observed that the charge against both the appellants was that they had slaughtered cow of the age of three years approximately on February 3, 2004 and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 298-A/34 RPC.
Thus the specific charge against the accused is that they slaughtered a cow, doctor has specifically stated that sex of the animal was not determinable. The prosecution has failed to prove that cow was slaughtered. In the judgment of Trial Court it was specifically held that it has also came in the evidence that Abdul Gani, Mohd Sadeeq and Mohd Rafiq were also present on spot when police reached on spot. High Court questioned then how conviction came to be recorded against appellants is best known to the Trial Court. With these observations High Court allowed the appeal and the impugned judgment/order of conviction and sentence set-aside and prosecution case dismissed.
According to the prosecution case one Abdul Gaffar lodged a written report with SHO P/S Loran against five persons namely Abdul Gani, Mohd Sadiq, Mohd Rafiq including two convicts that a cow was slaughtered by them in house of Qamar-ud-Din of Barachar Mandi, Poonch. The said report set police in motion; FIR came to be lodged against the accused for the commission of offence punishable u/s 298-A/34 RPC. The convicts aggrieve by the judgment of the sessions Court Poonch filed this criminal appeal which was allowed by the High Court.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
