A sessions court in Godhra’s Panchmahal district in Gujarat has directed to file a criminal complaint against two Panchayat witnesses, including three police personnel and a “cow keeper”, for a “false case” registered against two persons in July 2020. Transportation of cattle for illegal cow slaughter
While acquitting the two people, the court also ordered the animals seized from their vehicle four years ago to be handed over to their owners with immediate effect.
Fifth Additional Sessions Judge Parveja Hemed Malviya in his order on Tuesday directed district court registrar RS Amin to register a criminal complaint against assistant constables Rameshbhai Narwatsingh and Shankarsinh Sajjansingh. Sub-Inspector of Police MS Munia; and two Panch Sakshis, Margesh Soni and Darshan alias painter Pankaj Soni, under Section 248 of the Indian Judicial Code Act (Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code) “for false criminal proceedings against accused persons”.
The court directed the Superintendent of Police of Panchmahal to ‘take departmental action against the erring police officer’ and directed the registrar to submit a report on compliance with the above instructions.
Nazirmia Safimia Malek of Kheda Rudan and Ilyas Mohammad Dawal of Godhra Vejalpur were acquitted by the court in the case of Godhra B Division Police Station on 31st June last. Sections of the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1860, allegedly provided for the transportation of cattle – a cow, a buffalo and a buffalo calf – for slaughter. The court, upholding the defense’s argument, said the case was filed on “mere suspicion” and “the prosecution has miserably failed to prove it”.
The court termed the testimony of panchayat witness Margesh Soni as “unreliable”, describing him as a “stock witness”, “someone who sits behind the police and comes forward as directed by the police”.
The court said Margesh Soni had “confessed that he was a cow vigilante”, casting “great doubt on his credibility and genuineness”.
The eyewitness, called by the police, lives 8-10 km away
The court considered the defense’s argument that the prosecution intercepted the cattle vehicle at the Wasapur intersection – meaning the two Panch witnesses were “called by the police” even though their homes were 8 to 10 km away from the spot. And thus, “not the person of the local resident”, which is the mandatory protocol when doing Panchnama.
The court said: “Said Punch was one cow keeper (cow protector) and earlier he has been punched in many animal cases… the court may opt not to stand on his statement.
The court also considered the defense’s argument that since the incident took place during the July 2020 Covid-19 lockdown, “only those who have been issued the required pass permit can come out”. The court held that the complainant police officer “admitted calling the Panchs over the phone” but he did not arrange for such pass permits for them “nor did he seek permission for the same from his superiors.”
Calling it a “false accusation”, the court also supported the defense’s argument that Malek was only the driver of the pickup van and had given money to Dawal to transport cattle purchased from Rudan village in Kheda district. Animal husbandry businessman Dawal was not present in the vehicle when the police prosecuted him.
The court also heard the plea of the defense that the police showed the original certificate of purchase given by the sarpanch of Rudan Rural Municipality stating that the bull bought by Dawal was for taming and that Dawal had bought a jersey cow from Mohammadia Fakrumian Malek.
The court has also given such an order muddmal (Seize) the animal, which was sent Panjarapol (shelter home) should be “immediately handed over to (Dawal’s) custody without compensation”.
Also, the court directed the state and the prosecution in the case Panjarapol If the custody of the said animal is not returned to Dawal within 30 days from the date of this decision, the state will have to pay Dawal the purchase price of the said animal and 9% simple annual interest. From the date of confiscation till recovery of said amount. The court has also given freedom to the state to recover the amount Panjarapolerring police officers and panch witnesses, jointly and severally”.
Also, the court dismissed the prosecution’s plea to stay the execution of criminal proceedings against the police personnel and panchayat witnesses, saying the prosecution intends to challenge the order in the Gujarat High Court. It dismissed them as legitimate. correct The court said, ‘If the order given by this court is annulled, all the proceedings based on that order will automatically end. Therefore, the contention raised by the prosecution cannot be addressed and the order passed on merits after a full hearing cannot be stayed.”