JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - This is a revision against the conviction of the applicants under section 3/8 of the Cow Slaughter Act and the sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment awarded to each of them. Their conviction and sentences were affirmed in appeal by the Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra, and hence this revision. 2. The prosecution case was that on 17-3-1966 at about 7 a.in. the applicants slaughtered a cow in Morkhana, Fatehpur Sikri. It was alleged that on receiving information at the police station Fatehpur Sikri that a cow was being slaughtered at the aforesaid place, a police party headed by Head Constable Ganga Prasad reached the spot and found the accused cutting a cow. The police party made a raid and apprehended the accused on the spot. Fazaluddin had a blood stained knife in his hand. Zafrauddin also had a blood stained knife. On the spot fresh skin of the caw along with legs, horn, and meat were recovered. A recovery memo was prepared. The skin, horn and pieces of meat were sent for examination to the Veterinary Surgeon. His report is exhibit Cl. He found that the pieces of meat and skin all belonged to a hiefer. On that basis the accused were sent up for trial. 3. The applicants completely denied the allegations made by the prosecution. They denied the recovery of the aforesaid articles and the mutilated parts of the body of the animal from them. They stated that they had been falsely implicated and the witnesses were deposing against them on account of police pressure. They did not lead any evidence in defence. 4. The prosecution examined Chirag Uddin, Jagannath Prasad, Ashgar, Head Constable Ganga Prasad and Radha Charan S.-I. Dr. Umesh Chand Chaturvedi was examined under section 540 Cr.P.C. as a court witness. Believing the prosecution evidence the courts below come to the conclusion that the prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and so they were convicted and sentenced. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and was taken through the record of the case. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that their conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence which was not sufficient to justify the finding of conviction. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and was taken through the record of the case. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that their conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence which was not sufficient to justify the finding of conviction. It was urged that the settled rule with regard to circumstantial evidence was that it must exclude all hypothesis except the participation of the accused in the alleged crime. The argument was that on the evidence it could not be said that it was incompatible with the innocence of the accused . it might be that the animal was slaughtered by some other person and thereafter the accused were simply found cutting the carcass into pieces. That by itself would not constitute an offence under section 3 of the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act. This argument proceeds on the assumption that there was no evidence in the case about the actual slaughter of the cow. In my opinion, this assumption is not well- founded and I shall deal with the evidence which was actually led by the prosecution and discuss its implications. However, assuming for a moment that there was no evidence of the actual killing of the cow by the applicants, the question which arises is whether a presumption could he drawn under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act in the circumstances of this case to the effect that the accused persons had slaughtered the animal. As already indicated, the evidence was to the effect that the cow was being cut into pieces, the various parts of the body were recovered on the spot, a blood stained knife and other incriminating articles were also found by the police. The Veterinary Surgeon Sri Umesh Chand Chaturvedi was examined as a court witness and he stated that he had investigated the pieces of beef brought to him and also the hide of the cow on 18-8-1966. The horns and skin which contained not only the tail but also the teats of the cow were examined and in these circumstances the inference drawn was that the accused persons had slaughtered the cow. Dr. Chaturvedi deposed that the animal had been slaughtered only about 28 hours earlier and he had conducted the postmortem examination on 13-s-1966. The horns and skin which contained not only the tail but also the teats of the cow were examined and in these circumstances the inference drawn was that the accused persons had slaughtered the cow. Dr. Chaturvedi deposed that the animal had been slaughtered only about 28 hours earlier and he had conducted the postmortem examination on 13-s-1966. There was also link evidence to establish that the hide and the other recovered articles were taken safely to the Veterinary Surgeon for examination. In the circumstances of the case which I have narrated above I think it was a natural and reasonable inference drawn by the courts below that the applicants had slaughtered the cow. 6. My attention was drawn to a ruling of this Court in the case of AIR 1958 Allahabad 198, Dulla v. The State. In that case James, J. expressed the opinion that where there was no evidence of cow slaughter, merely on the basis that a man was cutting the piece of a cow no presumption could be reasonably drawn that he must have been the person who killed it. It was held that the facts did not exclude the hypothesis other than that the accused slaughtered the cow. It was also observed that the accused could very well have arrived on the scene after receiving information that a cow had been slaughtered in the house and its meat available in which case they would be innocent of the slaughter. As I shall presently indicate the evidence in the instant case was materially different. Each case has to be decided on its own facts and in Dulla's case (Supra) probably the evidence was not such as could be regarded sufficient to warrant the presumption that the accused had killed the cow. 7. On the other hand, I was referred to a later decision of this Court in 1959 ALJ 598 , Nathoo v. State wherein the view taken in Dulla's case was dissented from. It was observed by D. B. Mathur, J. that if a person was found cutting the flesh and skinning a freshly slaughtered cow, he could be presumed to have himself slaughtered that animal, unless he gave an explanation which appeared to be reasonable to the satisfaction of the Court. It was observed by D. B. Mathur, J. that if a person was found cutting the flesh and skinning a freshly slaughtered cow, he could be presumed to have himself slaughtered that animal, unless he gave an explanation which appeared to be reasonable to the satisfaction of the Court. On the facts of the present case and the evidence led by the prosecution, I an convinced that there was sufficient evidence to warrant the presumption under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act that the accused persons had slaughtered the cow. Moreover, both the courts below after an assessment of the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution case had been established and I am unable to find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by them so as to justify any interference in revision. I am in respectful agreement with Mathur, J. that in a case like this the statement of the accused is of considerable importance and the explanation given by him must be taken into account. Where the accused does not give any explanation but merely denies his presence at the time of the commission of the offence, the courts have to fall hack upon the prosecution case as a whole and are denied the assistance which could be available if the accused offers a prima fade reasonable explanation in defence. In the instant case the accused completely denied the prosecution story. It was nowhere suggested by them that they had in some manner come by the dead body of the cow and were dealing with the carcass at the time when the raid was made by the police party. Obviously, therefore, I am deprived of the assistance which could be derived from a reasonable explanation offered by the accused persons. Taking the prosecution evidence as a whole I am satisfied that there was no reason to disbelieve the prosecution witnesses and the facts and circumstances in their totality proved the prosecution case beyond doubt. 8. There is, however, yet another aspect of the case to which I would like to advert. I am unable to accept the construction sought to he put by the accused on the prosecution evidence in the present case. 8. There is, however, yet another aspect of the case to which I would like to advert. I am unable to accept the construction sought to he put by the accused on the prosecution evidence in the present case. Head Constable Ganga Prasad (P. W. 4) stated on oath that he along with his two companions concealed himself behind a wall and from there saw the accused cutting the flesh of the cow. To quote is words : "Dekha gae Ka Goshst Kat Rahe The". He was corroborated by Chirag Uddin (P.W. 1) Jagannath (P. W. 2) and Ashgar (P.W. 3). In my opinion their statements amount to an allegation that the animal was being slaughtered. Literally translated the statements mean that they saw the accused cutting the 'flesh' of the cow. The word 'flesh' in English and its equivalent in Hindi are predicated both of a dead body and the body of a living being. It is wrong to restrict its meaning to the flesh of a dead person or animal. Literature abounds in instances of the use of the term 'flesh' apropos living creatures. When Shakespeare bevailed "the miseries that human flesh is heir to," he was obviously adverting to the calamities which afflicted living human beings.' Likewise, when the Persian poet Shaikh Sadi depicted Care as a bird without feather or feet but which invariably fed on hum i.n flesh ('Hamesha Khurud Goshte Admi') he referred to the eroding effect of worry on living humanity. Nor is this usage of the expression 'flesh' in the context of living persons confined to the domain of literature. In popular parlance we speak of a person's flesh cut or chopped off by a sharpedged weapon. In the Concised Oxford Dictionary one of the. meanings of the word 'flesh' is "actually living, not supernatural or imaginary." According to Bouvier's Law Dictionery (Baldwin's Century Edition) 'flesh' "includes live flesh and (dead flesh". Corpus Juris Secundum Volums 36A says (page 754) :- "If flesh in the Old Testament, especially in the ritual books, means dead flesh, the same word in the New means the living creature. Indeed Job says 'Yet in my flesh shall I see God." 9. Corpus Juris Secundum Volums 36A says (page 754) :- "If flesh in the Old Testament, especially in the ritual books, means dead flesh, the same word in the New means the living creature. Indeed Job says 'Yet in my flesh shall I see God." 9. Thus, in the context of the present case the statements of the prosecution witnesses to the effect that they saw the accused cutting the flesh of the cow plainly implied that they saw them slaughtering the animal. One of the ways of killing an animal is by cutting its flesh. In fact, to speak of slaughtering a cow without touching its flesh is to commit a conundrum. If the accused had any doubt regarding the precise meaning of the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it was their duty to seek clarification by putting it to them that the cow was already dead at the time when they saw the accused cutting its flesh. It is significant that the defence studiously refrained from putting any such question to the prosecution witnesses in crosse-examination. If the matter was allowed to remain deliberately vague, then the natural and popular meaning of the words which is in the context must be accepted. 10. Therefore, on a consideration of the entire evidence in the case and the circumstances I am satisfied that the Prosecution case was fully established both by direct or oral testimony as well as by circumstantial evidence. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in-the judgments passed by the courts below. 11. For these reasons, I dismiss this revision and maintain the conviction and sentence of the accused. They are on bail. They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded to them. Their bail bonds are concelled.