ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This revision is directed against an order of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, upholding on appeal, the applicants' conviction and sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 100/- fine each u/s 3 read with Section 8 of the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act as recorder by a Magistrate First Class on 11.7.1963. 2. The prosecution case in short was as follows: On 30th of June 1962 Sub-Inspector Jai Nand Tyagi received information that a cow was being slaughtered at the house of appli-cant Yasin in village Sanpla Baq-qal. He took some persons of the village with him and entered the courtyard of Yasin and then the police party saw the applicants, along with another Majid son of Ibrahim, busy in dismembering a slaughtered cow into pieces and placing the same on a cot. An axe, a knife, a weighing scale and some weighment measures were lying nearby. Yasin was arrested at the spot but the other two applicants and Majid son of Ibrahim escaped to the north by scaling over the boundary wall. The pieces of the slaughtered cow were tied and sealed in bags at the spot in the presence of the witnesses. The aforesaid bags were opened in the presence of Dr. J.B. Sharma (P.W. 3) who examined their contents. He was of opinion that they were the portions of the body of a cow which had been slaughtered. 3. The applicants, along with Majid son of Ibrahim, who has been acquitted by the trial court were sent up for trial for an offence tinder Section 3/8 of the U.P. Prevention of Cow slaughter Act. They were convicted by the Magistrate and their conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge as indicated earlier. 4. At the trial, applicant pleaded hot guilty to the charge, Applicant Yasin stated that he was skinning a dead cow which belong-ed to one Bashir of Village Tilhari whose relation Nasim had a contract for skinning the dead animals, but had been falsely implicated in the case at the instance of one Jamil who had taken the theka for skinning dead animals in that year. The other applicants, namely, Bhoora and Majid attributed their false implication in the case due to their relationship with Yasin. 5. The other applicants, namely, Bhoora and Majid attributed their false implication in the case due to their relationship with Yasin. 5. The case of the prosecution rested on the testimony of Sub-Inspector Jai Nand Tyagi who had organised the raid and arrested Yasin, Rafiq and Yamin of village Sanpla and Attar Singh of village Fatehpur, all of whom stated to have been the applicants and the acquitted accused busy in dismembering the body of a slaughtered cow. 6. Learned Counsel for the applicants has argued that as no blood was found in the courtyard where the applicants are alleged to have been dismembering the cow, it cannot be held that the cow was slaughtered there and by the applicants and therefore, their conviction u/s 3/8 of the Act is not sustainable. This argument was repelled by the lower appellate court for the reasons with which I find myself in entire agreement. 7. The evidence of Dr. Sharma shows that the cow had a cut from the root of one year to the root of the other ear. I agree with the lower appellate court that this is done mostly when the object is to slaughter a cow. Dr. Sharma was also of opinion that the cow was about six years' old and had been slaughtered and that though in ordinary course blood ought to be found at the place where it was slaughtered, if a person is minded to prevent the blood falling on the ground he can succeed in doing so in a case of the present nature where the cow appeared to have been killed by giving only one stroke running from one end of the ear to the other end of the ear. There is another reason also why from the absence of the blood at the place it is not possible to hold that the cow was not slaughtered there. The applicant Yasin stated that he was skinning a dead cow. From that he clearly meant to have been skinning a cow which had met a natural death. This statement of; Yasin is contradicted by the medical evidence on the record as referred to earlier. Moreover, he did not produce any evidence to show as to where from he got the dead body of the cow for skinning. From that he clearly meant to have been skinning a cow which had met a natural death. This statement of; Yasin is contradicted by the medical evidence on the record as referred to earlier. Moreover, he did not produce any evidence to show as to where from he got the dead body of the cow for skinning. In the circumstances, I see no reason to differ with the findings of the courts below that Yasin was dismembering the parts of the body of a cow which had been slaughtered and as he had failed to explain as to how he came in possession of a slaughtered cow, it must, be presumed that he was himself responsible for slaughtering the cow. I am therefore satisfied that the offence charged against Yasin had been established beyond any doubt. 8. Learned Counsel has further argued that so far as applicants Bhoora and Majid are concerned, the prosecution case is not free from doubt. I find force in this contention. 9. Prosecution witness Rafiq had stated that he saw these two applicants for the first time when they were running, he could not see their faces and only thair back portion was in his view. Mohd. Yamin too who is a resident of the same village had stated that he could not see the faces of the applicants who had run away from the scene. Atter Singh another eye-witness did not know these applicants from before. In the identification parade he picked two correct and two wrong. In the circumstances, I am of opinion that it is not safe to uphold the conviction of Majid and Bhoora on the evidence furnished by this witness. It may be that these witnesses have testified to their participation in the crime because they found some persons who were engaged in dismembering the cow running away from the scene and imagined that they were these two applicants because of their close relationship with Yasin who was admittedly dismembering the cow in his courtyard and had been arrested at the spot. 10. In the result, this revision is allowed in part. The conviction and sentences of applicant Majid and Bhoora are set aside. They are on bail. Their bail-bonds are discharged. They need not surrender. 11. The conviction and sentence of Yasin as recorded by the courts below are upheld and his revision is dismissed. Yasin is on bail. 10. In the result, this revision is allowed in part. The conviction and sentences of applicant Majid and Bhoora are set aside. They are on bail. Their bail-bonds are discharged. They need not surrender. 11. The conviction and sentence of Yasin as recorded by the courts below are upheld and his revision is dismissed. Yasin is on bail. His bailbonds are cancelled. He must surrender forthwith and serve out the sentence.