JUDGMENT D.S. Mathur, J. - This is an application in revision by Nathu and three others, whose conviction under Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act has been maintained, though the Sessions Judge reduced the sentence to six month's rigorous imprisonment each. 2. The concurrent finding of fact of the lower courts can be summarised as below:- 3. On 8-7-1957 Munshi Singh constable of thana Milaic, who was on Baqrid duty in villages, received information that a cow was to be slaughtered in the house of Nathu in village Udaipur and took with him Sitaram constable, two village Chaukidars and a few witnesses. They reached Nathu's house at about mid-day. There were no shutters in the door of the house. They found all the four applicants, namely Nathu, Nanshey Khan, Hasan Shah Khan and Kalbe Ali Khan, busy in skinning and cutting the flesh into pieces of a slaughtered cow. Nathu was sitting on the body of the slaughtered cow. Fresh blood was coming out, and the hands of all the applicants were stained with that blood. They also found that the stomach of the cow had been opened and a portion of it had been skinned. 4. The above was the prosecution story which was accepted by both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge. This finding cannot be said to be perverse and, on the other hand, appears to be the right one. 5. The only two points for consideration are: firstly, if on the basis of the above evidence the charge under Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act had been established or not and secondly, whether the applicants are entitled to a reduction of sentence. 6. The learned counsel for the applicants relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Dulla v. The State, A.I.R. 1958 Allahabad 198 and has strongly urged that no presumption could be drawn nor could it be said that the charge under Sec. 8 had been made out. It was also prayed in the alternative that the applicants be lightly dealt with, and they should be released under the U.P. First Offender's Probation Act. 7. I have no reason to differ from the enunciation of law as made by brother James, J. in the above case; but deductions made therefrom were not quite justified. It was also prayed in the alternative that the applicants be lightly dealt with, and they should be released under the U.P. First Offender's Probation Act. 7. I have no reason to differ from the enunciation of law as made by brother James, J. in the above case; but deductions made therefrom were not quite justified. In any case, those deductions can no longer be considered as good law when the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act has been on the Statute book for many years and every citizen of the country shall be deemed to be aware of the prohibitions imposed thereby. For this reason it is not necessary for me to express my opinion in detail, and I shall confine myself to the two points and would casually make a reference to the grounds on which I, with respect, am inclined to differ. 8. Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act has been worded generally to enable the Courts to presume existence of facts which cannot be proved except by circumstantial evidence. This section runs as below:- "The Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have "happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case." 9. Where a cow was slaughtered many hours back, as were the facts in the aforementioned case, it may not be proper to utilise the provisions of Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act in view of the fact that there was a big gap between the slaughtering of the cow and the cutting of the flesh into big or small pieces. It can always happen that a few persons who had not aided in the slaughter of the cow may later on join, on their own or when approached by persons who had slaughtered the cow, in appropriating for their personal consumption flesh etc. of the slaughtered cattle and for that purpose cut the flesh into smaller pieces before removal to their houses. However, where fresh blood was flowing from the dead body, proving thereby that the cattle had been slaughtered very recently, persons present near the dead body and found cutting the flesh into pieces and skinning the dead body arc likely to be those who had actually slaughtered it. However, where fresh blood was flowing from the dead body, proving thereby that the cattle had been slaughtered very recently, persons present near the dead body and found cutting the flesh into pieces and skinning the dead body arc likely to be those who had actually slaughtered it. Consequently, whether the Courts can presume the existence of facts under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act or not shall depend upon the facts of an individual case. Any explanation that an accused gives for his presence at the spot and his conduct shall also be a material evidence in assisting the Court whether to draw a presumption against the accused or not. It is an established law that the statement made by an accused, not necessarily on oath, is a material evidence in the case which the Courts should keep in mind while recording a finding in the case. Where the explanation given is a reasonable one, though it has not been proved, the accused will become entitled to the benefit of doubt. But where the accused does not give any explanation but merely denied his presence at the time of the commission of the offence, the Courts shall have to fall back upon the prosecution case as a whole and will be deprived of, as one may say, the assistance which may be had from any plea which the accused may raise in his defence. 10. Coming to the facts of the present case, the finding of the lower courts is that the blood flowing from the dead body was fresh, meaning thereby that the cow had been slaughtered shortly before the arrival of the police party. The applicants were found cutting the flesh and skinning the dead body of the cow. They would be aware of the fact that cow slaughter had been prohibited and for that reason they would have been in a hurry not only to slaughter the cow but to remove the flesh, skin and bones so that the crime committed by them may not come to the notice of public authorities. The skinning of the cattle would thus be done soon after the slaughter and the flesh would be cut into big pieces and bigger into small pieces soon thereafter. The skinning of the cattle would thus be done soon after the slaughter and the flesh would be cut into big pieces and bigger into small pieces soon thereafter. On taking into consideration the human conduct the Courts can presume that the cow in question was slaughtered shortly before the skinning and the cutting of the flesh of the cow. In these circumstances the persons who were seen skinning the cow and cutting the flesh would have been the very persons who had slaughtered that cattle. In the present case none of the applicants admit their presence at the spot. They gave explanation to prove their alibi which has been disbelieved by both the lower courts. Consequently an inference which can be drawn from the circumstances given out by the prosecution can be utilised in full against the applicants. 11. In the illustrations given under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act there is no illustration directly applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. But the principle contained in illustration (a) can rightly be applied to the present case also. It is laid down therein that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft can be presumed to be a thief or receiver of goods knowing them to be stolen unless he can account for his possession. When a person in possession of stolen goods can be presumed to be a thief or a receiver of stolen property, a person found cutting the flesh and skinning a freshly slaughtered cow can be presumed to have himself slaughtered that cattle unless, of course, he gives an explanation which appears to be reasonable, even if not proved to the satisfaction of the Court. 13. To sum up, the lower courts were justified in presuming under Sec. 114 of the Evidence Act that all the four applicants had themselves slaughtered the cow and that they were guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. 14. Brother James, J. was considerably moved by two factors when he expressed his opinion that in cases of cow slaughter a nominal punishment of a fine of Rs. 50/- should be awarded. He was of opinion that beef was a staple food of most of the countries of the world, and in India for many classes it has always, been poor man's meat. 50/- should be awarded. He was of opinion that beef was a staple food of most of the countries of the world, and in India for many classes it has always, been poor man's meat. With due respect, I would differ from those observations. Beef is only one kind of cheap meat available for human consumption, and cannot be said to be the staple food of residents of India, or flesh without which poor persons cannot live. Consequently poor persons who cannot afford to enjoy the luxury of mutation or white meat can easily satisfy their demand for meat by slaughtering unserviceable buffaloes. They would thereby not only appease their desire for taking cheap meat but also respect the feelings of the residents of their country by faithfully complying with the law by not slaughtering cows. 15. It is true that in the reasons and object of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act it was not mentioned that one of the reasons for passing the law was to show respect to the majority community of this country. But the Courts must be alive to the conditions prevalent in the country in which justice is being administered. Courts cannot also overlook the past history. It is very well known that on numerous occasions communal riots were the result of an attempt to slaughter cow or a result of cow slaughter. The same feeling exists even now. Cow slaughter may be inside the house. It is opposed by residents of the place irrespective of whether it is a city, town or village. A cow slaughter can even now result in a big riot. Consequently when the illegal act of the accused is such which can disturb the peace and be the cause of destruction of property and lives of many innocent persons, of the courts must take a severe view so that no one may think of disturbing the peaceful conditions prevalent in the area. If the facts are considered in this light, a nominal sentence of a fine of Rs. 50/- will not serve any purpose. I would have been reluctant to interfere with the sentence had the Sessions Judge maintained the sentence which was awarded to the present applicants by the trial Magistrate. This sentence was of one year's rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge has, I may say, on insufficient grounds, reduced to it to six month's rigorous imprisonment. I would have been reluctant to interfere with the sentence had the Sessions Judge maintained the sentence which was awarded to the present applicants by the trial Magistrate. This sentence was of one year's rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge has, I may say, on insufficient grounds, reduced to it to six month's rigorous imprisonment. No case is thus made out for further reduction of the sentence. 16. The revision application is hereby dismissed. The applicants are on bail and they shall surrender forthwith to the sentence awarded to them.