JUDGMENT B.D. Gupta, J. - The applicants stand convicted for the offence punishable under section 8 of the U. P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act (U. P. Act No. I of 1956), the sentence awarded being six month's R.I. to each. After hearing learned counsel for the applicants, as also learned counsel for the State, I am satisfied that where as the finding of conviction is well sustained the sentence awarded is unduly severe. 2. The prosecution case which has been accepted by the courts below, was that on the early morning of the 22nd of September, 1967 some constables on patrol duty received information that some persons were slaughtering a calf in a Nala, that after collecting witnesses the constables proceeded to the spot and the three applicants were seen cutting meat from the body of a calf, which had been already slaughtered and skinned, that the applicants were arrested at the spot and as a result of a search of their person, whilst an axe was found in possession of applicant Abdul Khaliq, a knife each were found in the possession of the other two applicants. The calf's head with horns, fresh hide with a tail and meat weighing about 20 seers was also found. The evidence given by Dr. R. B. Katiyar, who conducted the postmortem examination was to the effect that it was the body of a bullock aged about 7 years and that it must have been slaughtered at about 4 or 5 A. M. on the morning of the 22nd September, 1967. 3. At the trial the prosecution had examined three witnesses, who supported the prosecution case as eye-witnesses. The defence set forward on behalf of the applicants was complete denial of the prosecution case with the assertion that they had been arrested from their homes. Some evidence in defence was also examined, but the courts below accepted the prosecution evidence, rejected the defence and convicted and sentenced the applicants as above. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants urged that since the evidence of Dr. Some evidence in defence was also examined, but the courts below accepted the prosecution evidence, rejected the defence and convicted and sentenced the applicants as above. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants urged that since the evidence of Dr. R. B. Katiyar was to the effect that the calf must have been slaughtered at about 4 or 5 A.M. and the arrest of the applicants took place a little over two hours later, it could not necessarily be inferred from the mere fact that the applicants were found at the spot cutting meat of the calf that they were the persons who had slaughtered the calf. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on the decisions recorded by Oak, C. J. in two cases, viz., Bulaqi v. State, 1970 A. Cr. R. 20 and Qamruddin v. State, 1970 A. Cr. R. 606. The learned Sessions Judge, who dismissed the appeal of the applicants before him, relied on the decision of D.S. Mathur, J. in Natthu v. State, 1959 AWR 430 and the decision of M. N. Shukla, J. in Fazaluddin v. State, 1969 A. Cr. R. 541. 5. The question as to whether, in the facts and the circumstances of a particular case, the inference that the persons found cutting the meat of a slaughtered cow or calf were the very persons who had slaughtered the animal, is a pure question of fact. There is nothing to prevent this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. to interfere with the findings on questions of fact. At the same time it is well settled that in case the finding recorded by the courts below is a reasonable inference on the material on record, this court will be extremely reluctant in interfering with such a finding. I am inclined to agree, if I may say so with respect, with the observations made by D.S. Mathur, J. and M.N. Shukla, J. in the decisions referred to above that in cases where the accused persons altogether deny their presence at the spot, which denial turns out to be unture, the court will be legitimately entitled in leaning in favour of an inference against the defence. The mere circumstance that in the present case the bullock in question may have been slaughtered a little over two hours before the applicants were apprehended at the spot does not appear sufficient to throw overboard the probative value furnished by the circumstance that each of the three applicants were found in possession of weapons which are normally used in slaughtering a calf or other similar animal and that each of them denied altogether that they were arrested from the place at a time when they were found cutting the meat of the calf in small bits. No weights or scale were found at the spot and it could not be suggested that any one or more of the applicants had gone to the place, in the Nala situate in a secluded place far away from the Abadi, for the purpose of purchasing meat of the calf. The number of persons found present on the spot is also not inconsistent with the view that each of the three applicants had participated in slaughtering the calf. I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the present case, the inference that the applicants themselves had slaughtered the calf in question are irresistible and no interference with the findings of the courts below is called for. 6. Turning now to the question of sentence I am of the opinion that this being the first offence found to have been committed by the applicants, a sentence of six months R.I. errs on the side of severity. The records make it clear that each of the applicants must have already served R.I. for about two weeks. The offence was committed more than four years ago. I am satisfied that no useful purpose will be served by sending the applicants back to jail again. The sentence already served would appear sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 7. Accordingly this revision is allowed only to this extent that whilst the conviction of the applicants is maintained, the sentence of six months R.I. each awarded to the applicants is reduced, in each case, to the period already undergone. The applicants are on bail. They need surrender not Their bail bonds are discharged.