JUDGMENT R. Singh, J. - This is an application in revision against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge of Partapgarh maintaining the conviction of the applicants under Sections 298 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The applicants were prosecuted along with some others under Sections 298 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that they, along with some others, who have been acquitted, sacrificed a Cow in village Dhalamau with the deliberate intention of wounding the feelings of Hindus. Evidence was led to prove that the applicants, along with some others, bathed a cow, garlanded it and took it along the way to a khandhal where they sacrificed it in the view of others. After sacrificing the cow they took on a not some parts of it with the horns and legs protruding over the cot, along the way to another place. These persons were asked, when they were bringing the cow after bathing and garlanding it, as to where they were taking it to where-upon they told the man that they were taking it for sacrifice and if those persons objected they would also be killed in the same manner. Attaulla is said to have been armed with a gun also. There was also evidence to show that when the cow was being sacrificed in the khandhal some persons were attracted by the groans and they saw the cow being sacrificed. The applicants were then prosecuted along with the others. 3. The Defendants denied the offence. The trial Court found the applicants guilty of the offences under Sections 298 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them as above. They went in appeal to the Sessions Judge who agreed with the view taken by the Trial Court. He, upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment. The applicants have now come up in revision. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that it was the third day of Baqrid and the applicants had a right to sacrifice cows in connection with the festival. It cannot be disputed that the applicants had a right to sacrifice a cow or any other animal, even if it had not been in connection with Baqrid. 4. It has been argued on behalf of the applicants that it was the third day of Baqrid and the applicants had a right to sacrifice cows in connection with the festival. It cannot be disputed that the applicants had a right to sacrifice a cow or any other animal, even if it had not been in connection with Baqrid. The law has, however, made it an offence if the act, even if otherwise legitimate, is done with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any other person. It is also not disputed that the cow is held sacred by the Hindu religion and the sacrifice of cows is such to the dislike of Hindus. The only point for consideration, therefore, before the Court was if the sacrifice was made with the intention of wounding the religious feelings of the Hindus. The facts which have been found by the Courts below are that the cow was bathed and garlanded and then taken along the way to a particular place which was not secluded. It was a khandhal, the dilapidated walls of which were about a cubit high. It was close to a public way coming from the river where other persons were also working. They were attracted by the groans of the cow when it was being sacrificed. Lastly the cow was taken on a cot on a public way where the carcass was visible to passers by. It has been argued that none of those acts, if taken singly, would show that the applicants had any deliberate intention of wounding the religious feeling of any other person. The intention of a person can be gathered from circumstances only, and it is well high impossible to adduce direct evidence to establish the intention of an accused person. In the present case the garlanding of the cow and parading it before sacrifice and sacrificing it at a place which was open to view and then the carrying of the carcass in the manner referred to above clearly indicated that it was the intention of the applicants to wound the religious feelings of the other community. The view taken by the two Courts below appears therefore, to be correct. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants has also pressed for reduction of sentence. The view taken by the two Courts below appears therefore, to be correct. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants has also pressed for reduction of sentence. The applicants were sentenced to six months" rigorous imprisonment, but their sentence, has already been reduced in appeal to three months' rigorous imprisonment. Offences of this nature which incite feelings, resulting sometimes in riots etc., should not be treated lightly. The learned Sessions Judge has already reduced the sentences to three months' rigorous imprisonment and I do not think any further reduction is called for. The application in revision is rejected. The applicants are on bail. They shall surrender to their bail to serve out the remaining part of their sentence.