Parasram-Ji-v.-Imtiaz.pdf The judgment in Parasram Ji v. Imtiaz, can be read here

MANU/UP/0009/1962
Equivalent/Neutral Citation: AIR1962All22, (1962) 32 AWR 92
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Criminal Revn. No. 1174 of 1960
Decided On: 14.03.1961
Parasram Ji Vs. Imtiaz
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
William Broome, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V.K.S. Chaudhry, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Iqbal Ahmad, Asstt. Govt. Adv.
ORDER
William Broome, J.
1 . This criminal revision application, which has been filed by the Secretary of the
Gohatya Nirodh Samiti of Muzaffarnagar against the acquittal in appeal of certain
persons who had been convicted by a first class Magistrate of that district for an offence
under Section 8 of the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, raises an interesting point
regarding the distinction between attempt to commit an offence and mere preparation
for an offence.
2. The prosecution case was that at about 6 p.m. on 29-1-1959 Head Constable Deep
Chand of Police Station Titavi, being informed that some persons had collected a
number of cows in a piece of waste land in the vicinity of the police station with the
object of slaughtering them, proceeded to the spot along with a number of witnesses;
and when he arrived there he found a cow lying on the ground tied up with rope, being
held down by Sharif and Khairati accused, while Imtiaz accused stood by with a knife in
his hand. Three other persons Ishtiaq, Rafiq and Hanif were also present on the spot
along with a herd of 51 cows and calves.
3. The Magistrate who tried the case accepted the prosecution story in its entirety and
convicted all the six of the accused for an offence under Section 8 of the U. P.
Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. Imtiaz, Sharif and Khairati were sentenced to six
months' R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/- each, while Hanif, Rafiq and Ishtiaq were
sentenced to three months' R. I. In appeal however the Additional. Sessions Judge of
Muzaffarnagar found that Hanif, Rafiq and Ishtiaq were mere onlookers; while as
regards Imtiaz, Sharif and Khairati he came to the conclusion that the acts attributed to
them fell short of proving an attempt to slaughter the cow and amounted to nothing
more than mere preparation, which would not make them criminally liable. Accordingly
all six were acquitted.
4. This revision has been dismissed summarily as regards Hanif, Rafiq and Ishtiaq and
has been admitted with respect to Imtiaz, Sharif and Khairati only.
5. The facts alleged by the prosecution have been accepted by both the courts below as
06-11-2025 (Page 1 of 3) www.manupatra.com SVKM's NMIMS University

proved and cannot be challenged in this revision. But the point that arises for
determination is whether these proved facts disclose an attempt to slaughter a cow,
punishable in accordance with Section 511 I.P.C., or only preparation for slaughter,
which would not be punishable at all,
6 . Preparation, normally speaking, consists of devising and arranging the means
necessary for the commission of the offence; while attempt implies some direct move
towards the commission of the offence after the preparation has been made. But there
is no sharp clear-cut distinction between the two. The one shades into the other and the
dividing line can only be decided with reference to the facts of each particular case.
Before any decision on this point can be reached in the present case therefore, it is
necessary to subject the prosecution evidence to a close scrutiny, in order to determine
precisely what was being done by each of the accused.
7 . Three eye-witnesses have been examined in this case viz. Head Constable Deep
Chand (P.W. 1), Gopal (P.W. 2) and Kishan Chand (P.W. 3). And the description given
by each of them of what they saw when they reached the spot is as follows:
Deep Chand: The three accused named Imtiaz, Sharif and Khairati had thrown
down an old cow that had been tied with rope. Imtiaz had a knife in his hand.
Sharif and Khairati were holding the cow down .......... (and in cross-
examination:) When I arrived on the spot, the knife was in his hand; it had not
been wielded; he was holding it in his hand. There was no injury on the cow's
body.
Gopal: A cow was lying tied up. There were three men near it. Two were
holding it down. One had a knife in his hand.
Kishan Chand: A cow was tied up with rope. There were three men near it. One
had a knife. Two were holding it down.
8. From this evidence three facts and no more emerge: there was a cow lying tied up
on the ground; Sharif and Khairati accused were holding it down; and Imtiaz accused
was present on the spot, with a knife in his hand. It is not clear whether Sharif and
Khairati were holding the cow down so as to facilitate the cutting of its throat or merely
because they were completing the process of tying it up. Nor is there any suggestion
that Imtiaz was doing anything with the knife apart from merely holding it in his hand.
It has not been alleged, for example, that he had placed the knife on the animal's throat
or that he had raised it to strike a blow or anything of that kind.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the decision of Dwivedi,
J. in Chhidda v. State, Criminal Revn. No. 373 of 1958 (All), in which the circumstances
were somewhat similar to those in the present case and the accused were held guilty of
an attempt to slaughter. The distinguishing feature of that case, however, is that the
accused were caught at the stage when they were reciting 'bismillah', a rite which is
meant to be practically simultaneous with the actual slaughter of the victim. In the
present case there is no suggestion that the accused were reciting 'bismillah', nor is
there any other evidence that might go to show that they were on the brink of
slaughtering the cow.
10. In the circumstances of the present case it seems to me that the learned Sessions
Judge was perfectly right in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has
succeeded in proving only preparation, not attempt. Making an animal ready for
slaughter by tying it with rope and throwing it down on the ground is obviously nothing

more than mere preparation for its slaughter. One could do all that and then go off and
leave the animal lying on the ground, postponing the actual slaughter for an hour or
two.
Attempt to slaughter must imply some act more proximate to the actual killing.
Similarly, merely arming oneself with a knife would only amount to preparation. The
stage of attempt would be reached when the knife was raised or pointed at the animal
with the intention of inflicting the fatal blow. This distinction is clearly brought out by
illustration (c) to Section 307 I.P.C., which shows that merely arming oneself with a
gun and loading it do not constitute attempt to murder, though firing the gun at the
intended victim, does. I am therefore satisfied that Imtiaz, Sharif and Khairati cannot be
held guilty of attempt to slaughter the cow, but only of preparation for its slaughter.
11. In the case of attacks on human beings, mere preparation by itself may amount to
an offence (under Section 351 I.P.C.); but preparation for the slaughter of an animal is
no offence. This revision application is accordingly rejected, the acquittal of the accused
being confirmed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Parasram-Ji-v.-Imtiaz.pdf The judgment in Parasram Ji v. Imtiaz, can be read here

More Related Content

More from sabranghindi

Recently uploaded

Parasram-Ji-v.-Imtiaz.pdf The judgment in Parasram Ji v. Imtiaz, can be read here