JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners Noora, Lalu and two others Lukman and China were tried before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Balotra under section 379 I.P.C. and under section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act 1958 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') for committing theft and slaughtering the cow of PW 2 Chima. 2. The prosecution case, as disclosed at the trial, was that on 2-12-1969, the cow of PW 2 Chima was left for grazing in the boundary of village Gudisar. It was last seen with the accused Noora and Lalu by PW 4 Raju and thereafter its whereabouts were not known. The cow did not return to the house of Chima and as such search was made for it. Following the foot prints of the cow PW 2 Chima and others went up to the house of Hussain DW 1, father of accused Noora, who admitted the doing to death the cow of Chima by accused Noora, Lalu and others and asked PW 2 Chima to accept the compensation. It is also the case of the prosecution that petitioner Noora and Lalu made extra-judicial confession before PW 2 Chima and others later on. The First Information Report Ex. P. 1 was lodged at the Police Station, Barmer on 24-12-69 by PW 1 Bakhta. The accused petitioners Noora and Lalu were arrested on 27-12-1969 vide Ex. P. 6 and Ex, P. 7 respectively. Accused Noora, after his arrest, expressed his desire to get the remains of the cow of PW 2 Chima recovered from the places of their concealment. The information memo is Ex, P. 11. In consequence of the information given by accused Noora and on his pointing a gunny bag Ex. M. 5 stained with blood, was recovered from the house of Noora. A knife, an axe, piece of rope, pieces of skins, bones and bloodstained earth Ex. M. 10 were also recovered from there. Thereafter the accused took the police, party to hillock and on his pointing piece of skin (Ex. M. 6) stained with cow's blood was recovered. The recovery meme is Ex. P. 3. The recovery and the information were proved by the statement of PW 1 Padamsingh, PW 2 Chima, PW 6 Pabudan Singh and PW 9 Bhoor Singh. The piece of skin Ex. M. 6, the cutting from the gunny bag Ex. M. 6) stained with cow's blood was recovered. The recovery meme is Ex. P. 3. The recovery and the information were proved by the statement of PW 1 Padamsingh, PW 2 Chima, PW 6 Pabudan Singh and PW 9 Bhoor Singh. The piece of skin Ex. M. 6, the cutting from the gunny bag Ex. M. 5 and the sample of the earth Ex. M. 10 were found by the serologist and Chemical Examiner vide his report Ex. P. 13 to be stained with cow blood. He also noticed tissues of cow in Ex. M. 6. on 27.12,1969 Lalu expressed his desire to get the remains of the cow of PW 2 Chima discovered from the place of their concealment. The information memo is Ex. P. 10. In consequence of this information pieces of bones, horn, hide were recovered from the field concealed 3 ft. deep under the earth. The piece of gunny bag Ex. M. 9, stained with blood, and an axe were produced by the accused from his house. These articles were seized and sealed on the spot vide recovery memo Ex. P. 5. The information and the recovery memo have been proved by the statement of PW 11 Padam Singh, PW 2 Chima, PW 6 Pabudansingh and PW9 Bhoor Singh. A perusal of Ex. P.2 proved by the statement of PW 7 Kailash Narain reveals that the skin bore cut marks by sharp edged weapon. The petitioners Noora and Lalu made confessional statements before PW 10 Raghunath Singh. Their confessions were recorded on 12.1.1970 and they have been marked Ex. P. 3 A and Ex. P. 4A respectively. 3. Both the accused petitioners denied their complicity in the crime. They retracted the confession made by them on the ground that they confessed on account of police pressure. Their plea before the trial court was that PW. 2 Chima did not have any cow at the relevant time. A few months prior to the alleged occurrence viz., in the Samvat year 2025 PW 2 Chima sent ten or twelve cows . for grazing out of Rajasthan with the herd of Hussain in the days of famine. The herd of cattle taken by Hussain including the cows of, PW 2 Chima died due to famine. Chima suspected foul play on the part of Noora. for grazing out of Rajasthan with the herd of Hussain in the days of famine. The herd of cattle taken by Hussain including the cows of, PW 2 Chima died due to famine. Chima suspected foul play on the part of Noora. He was under the impression that his cows were said by Noora and the money received Wat appropriated by him. As such he demanded compensation. Hussain refused to pay the same, as a result of which PW/2 Chima got infuriated. He conspired and foisted a fake case against the accused-petitioner. The learned Assistant Sessions lodge found the defence set-up by the accused petitioners unreliable. He disbelieved the statement of PW.5 Kamalsingh. But held that the retracted confessions of the accused-petitioners Noora and Lalu Ex. P. 3A and Ex. P. 4A respectively were voluntary and true and they stood amply corroborated by the evidence of recovery and the statement of PW. 4 Raju. On the basis of the above finding the learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the accused-petitioners under sections 372 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. He also convicted the accused petitioners under section 2 of 'the Act' and sentenced each of them to two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. The substantive sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. However, the other two accused Lukman and China tried along with the accused petitioners were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. 4. The petitioners challenged their conviction and sentences before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalore, without any success. Hence this revision petition. 5. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioners that the statements of PW. 5 Kamalsingh and PW. 4 Raju are not reliable. Both of them are interested witnesses, they have disowned their inconvenient statements. They had no reason to be on or near the scene of the occurrence. Theft names have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. They appear to have scant regard for truth. Their statements are full of improbabilities. After excluding the statements of PW. 4 Raju and PW. 5 Kamalsingh the remaining evidence against the petitioner is only circumstantial. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. Theft names have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. They appear to have scant regard for truth. Their statements are full of improbabilities. After excluding the statements of PW. 4 Raju and PW. 5 Kamalsingh the remaining evidence against the petitioner is only circumstantial. The law regarding circumstantial evidence is well settled. In order to base the conviction of an accused on circumstantial evidence the court must be satisfied that the circumstantial evidence is of such a character as is consistent only with the guilt of the accused. In other words there should be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion with the innocence of the accused. The circumstance must show that within all reasonable probability the impugned act must have been done by the accused. 6. The first and foremost question which arises is whether the confession Ex. P. 3 A and Ex. P. 4A made by Noora and Lalu respectively are entitled to credence and can be acted upon. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners was at pains in to show that the confessional statement made by accused Noora and Lalu marked Ex. P3A and Ex. P. 4A respectively, are not true. Even if they are held to be true it would be very risky to act on the retracted confession which according to the learned counsel were resiled from as early as an opportunity occurred. Dealing with his contention he pointed out that for the purpose of finding out whether the confession is true, it would be necessary to examine the same and compare it with the rest of the prosecution evidence and the probability of the case. A close comparison of the confession with the other evidence on record, would prove that the confessional statement stand contradicted by other evidence and as such either of the statements cannot be termed to be true. Learned counsel urged that both the accused petitioners fit their confessional statements stated that they made extra-judicial, confession before PW 2 Chima who came to their Dhant on the next date of the occurrence but this fact stand contradicted by the statements of Chima himself as well by non-mentioning of such an important fact in the First Information Report. 7. Learned counsel urged that both the accused petitioners fit their confessional statements stated that they made extra-judicial, confession before PW 2 Chima who came to their Dhant on the next date of the occurrence but this fact stand contradicted by the statements of Chima himself as well by non-mentioning of such an important fact in the First Information Report. 7. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the state that First Information Report of this occurrence was given by PW 1 Bakhta a third person before whom the extra judicial confession was not made and as such non-mentioning of this fact in the First Information Report cannot be a ground for rejecting the confessions. Besides that there was no occasion for the informant to have mentioned all the particulars of the evidence in the First Information Report which had to be narrated and proved at the trial. It may at the most create a doubt about the varacity of the evidence regarding the extra-judicial confession, but on the basis of the absence of this fact in the First Information Report it cannot be said that the confessional statements Ex. P/3A and Ex. P/4A are untrue, A perusal of the statement of PW 2 Chima shows that at one stage he stated that both Noora and Lalu admitted butchering of the cow before him. He also stated that none of them met him after the giving of the First Information Report. In other words which means that extra Judicial confession by the petitioners were made before filing of First Information Report. The witness is a village rustic he could not be a match to.the intelligence of the advocate cross examining him and certain contradictions in narration do appear in the statement of this witness regarding making of extra judicial confession by the accused-petitioner to him. But that cannot by itself be a sufficient ground to hold the confessional statements Ex. P/3 A and Ex. P/4A made by the two petitioners before the Magistrate, untrue. While scanning the evidence of an uneducated village rustic the court is required to inform itself that variance on fringes discrepancies in details, contradictions in narration in unessential parts cannot militate against the varacity of the core of the testimony. The statement of PW 2 Chima has an impress of truth and conformity to the probabilities of the case. While scanning the evidence of an uneducated village rustic the court is required to inform itself that variance on fringes discrepancies in details, contradictions in narration in unessential parts cannot militate against the varacity of the core of the testimony. The statement of PW 2 Chima has an impress of truth and conformity to the probabilities of the case. The other arguments that in the confession made by accused Lalu and Noora there is no reference regarding the discovery of the remains of the cow of PW 2 Chima being made from them and as such they should be branded as false, cannot be accepted, because the absence of certain details put forward at the trial in the confessional statements do not make them false. It would be pertinent to note that these confessional statements were made by the accused after the discoveries were made and if they would have been made at the pressure and pursuance of the police than the accused would have been very well made to state the facts regarding the discovery in their confessional statements. A confession is made as a result of remorse and repentance and the accused states what according to him will make a clean breast. There is no statement in the confession which is contrary to oral evidence though the details of the prosecution case given at the trial do not appear in extense in the confession but for that reason, I am not prepared to say that they are untrue. Two courts below have placed reliance in them and I find no reason to hold otherwise. 8. The next question which needs consideration is whether there is sufficient corroboration of the confessions, since both the accused have retracted from them. It is a matter of prudence and caution which has sanctified itself into a rule of law that a retracted confession cannot be made solely a basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated, but it does not necessarily mean that each and every circumstances mentioned in the confession regarding the complicity of the accused, must be separately and independently corroborated. It would be sufficient in my opinion if from preponderance of evidence on record it can be said that the confessions have been sufficiently corroborated. 9. Accused Noora s/o Hussain in his confessional statement Ex. It would be sufficient in my opinion if from preponderance of evidence on record it can be said that the confessions have been sufficiently corroborated. 9. Accused Noora s/o Hussain in his confessional statement Ex. P 3A stated that he in the company of other accused Lalu found the cow of PW 2 Chima grazing all alone. Both of them brought it to his Dhani. Both of them cut it with a knife. The beef of the cow was eaten by them on two dines. The rest was thrown to the dogs. The bones and skin were thrown by them on a hillock. Next day Chima came to his Dhani. He met both the petitioners and on his inquiry they admitted the cutting of the cow. Thereafter the owner of the cow went back to his house. 10. In pursuance to his statement Ex. P 11 the discoveries potential to the guilt of the accused were made. On his pointing the skin Ex. M6, the blood stained earth Ex.M 10 and the piece of gunny bag Ex. M 5 were seized by Ex. P 3. The Serologist and the Chemical Analyser found the skin Ex. M6 containing tissues of a cow. Ex. M 10 and Ex. M 5 smeared with the blood of a cow. The report of the serologist is Ex. P 13. Thus, the confessional statement Ex. P 3A made by accused Noora stands corroborated in material particulars by the recovery of the skin Ex. M6 blood stained earth Ex. M10 and cutting of gunny bag Ex. M 5. The effect of this recovery is that it connects the accused with the crime. No other person could have known the where an tuts of the remains of the cow of PW 2 Chima, having regards to the details they were supplied except the person who was in fact connected with the slaughtering of the cow. The accused Noora has failed to explain how the blood of a cow happen to be found on the piece of gunny bag and earth got recovered by him. The conclusion that emerges from the confession Ex. 3A and recoveries pointed out above is that they point out the direct involvement of the accused Noora in the crime. The accused Noora has failed to explain how the blood of a cow happen to be found on the piece of gunny bag and earth got recovered by him. The conclusion that emerges from the confession Ex. 3A and recoveries pointed out above is that they point out the direct involvement of the accused Noora in the crime. Besides that, it has also appeared in the statement of PW2 Chima that the foot prints of his cow went up to the Dhani of Noora. The science of identification of foot prints is no doubt a rudimentary science and much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of foot trackers. But it can certainly be relied upon as a circumstance which alongwith other circumstances would point to the guilt of the accused. It can be read as a corroborative piece of evidence in support of the evidence of recoveries and retracted confession. The conclusion which emerges from the retracted confession Ex. P 2A read in conjunction with the evidence of the foot prints of the cow of PW 2 Chima going upto the Dhani of Noora and evidence of recoveries of incriminating articles made at his instance is that chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and it is consistent only with the guilt of the accused Noora. 11. Now remains the case of Lalu. The evidence against him can be divided under two heads: (1) retracted confession Ex. P/4A, (2) recovery of the pieces of bones skin, horns and a piece of gunny bag Ex. M. 9. As regards bones, skin, horns recovered at the instance of accused Lalu, P. W. 7 Dr. Kailash Narayan in his report Ex. P/2 mentioned that they were of cattle, but he could not say whether they were of live or dead animal He reiterated it in his statement before the Court. As such this evidence cannot be held to be of any avail to the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime. The only evidence which remains is of the recovery of a place of gunny bag Ex. M. 9 which was found by the Serologist to be stained with cow's blood. The extent of the stains have not been mentioned therein. There is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners that the retracted confessional statement Ex. The only evidence which remains is of the recovery of a place of gunny bag Ex. M. 9 which was found by the Serologist to be stained with cow's blood. The extent of the stains have not been mentioned therein. There is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners that the retracted confessional statement Ex. P/4A made by the accused Lalu cannot be said to have been corroborated in material particulars by this recovery and it would be very unsafe to convict the accused petitioner Lalu under section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act or under section 3 79. I.P.C. Suspicion howsoever great can not take place of proof. 12. The net result of the above discussions is that the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused-petitioner Lalu under both the counts is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges framed against him. He is on bail. The bail bonds of the accused petitioner Lalu are ordered to be discharged. He need not surrender to his bail bonds. But the conviction of the accused Noora under both the counts is upheld. The accused Noora is held guilty of the offence which is of a serious type. It sometimes leads to disturbance of the peace of the society putting to peril the life of so many innocent persons. In the facts and circumstances of the case the sentence a warded to the accused-petitioner Noora under section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act cannot be said to be excessive. His conviction and sentence under section 379, I.P.C.is also maintained. The substantive sentences of imprisonment are, however, ordered to run concurrently. 13. The accused-petitioner Noora is on bail. He is not before me. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barmer, will get the accused-petitioner Noora arrested and send him to jail for undergoing the remaining term of sentence awarded by the two courts below and upheld by this Court. 14. The revision petition is partly allowed as indicated above. *******