Short Note : 1. This revision by the accused-applicant is directed against the judgment dated 27-6-77 passed by the Sessions Judge Mandsaur in Criminal appeal No. 32 of 1977, arising out of the judgment dated 31-1-77 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandsaur in Criminal case No. 930 of 1975, convicting the applicant under section 4 read with section 10 of the M.P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act and sentencing him to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that on 5-6-76 at about 4.30 p.m. the applicant and four others caught one bullock which was an animal useful to agriculture. Badrilal (P.W.1) saw the incident and sent one Rameshwar to inform the police. Balmukund Sharma (P.W.6), Asst. Sub-inspector registered the offence by Ex. P. 10 on this information and went to the place of occurrence alongwith Panch-witnesses and police constables. On seeing the police the accused ran away leaving the dead body of bullock there. The head of the bullock as also the flesh and the hide of the bullock was seized by Ex. P. 1 and was sent to Dr. Joshi (P.W.2) veterinary Assistant Surgeon. After investigation the applicant and others were prosecuted of the offence under section 4 read with section 10 of the M.P. Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act. The accused denied their guilt. After trial the applicant and other accused Azim, Rafiq and Nabibux were found guilty of the offence charged with and were convicted and sentenced as stated above. In appeal the other accused were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted and the conviction and sentence of the applicant was maintained. The applicant has challenged his conviction and sentence in this revision. Held : The applicant has been convicted mainly on the evidence of Badrilal (P.W.1). Badrilal (P.W.1) stated that he was on his well and he saw from there that the accused were taking the bullock in a pit and there they killed it. He sent information to the police with one Rameshwar; that the police came about 1-1/2 hour after that and by that time all the accused had run away and the hide of the bullock and head were found there which were seized by the police. 3. He sent information to the police with one Rameshwar; that the police came about 1-1/2 hour after that and by that time all the accused had run away and the hide of the bullock and head were found there which were seized by the police. 3. Rameshwar who was alleged to have been sent by Badrilal (P.W.1) for informing the police has not been examined. The report (Ex. P.10) was recorded by Balmukund Sharma (P.W.6) at 9 p.m. on 5-6-75. It was stated in the report that information was received from an informant that some 5-6 Multanis were cutting a cattle in the jungle of village Pithyakhedi. It was further stated in the report that on receiving information Balmukund Sharma (P.W.6) went to the place of occurrence and found the hide and head of the bullock which were seized and that on investigation it was found that the accused had cut the bullock at about 4/4.30 p.m. The name of Rameshwar does not appear in the report. 4. Dr. Joshi (P.W.2) deposed that police Mandsaur had sent to him one head of bullock on 5-6-75 for examination. He stated that on examination he found that the bullock was killed some 12-14 hours before; it was examined by him. He further admitted that the head of the bullock was received by him at 11.30 a.m. His report (Ex. P. 2). also showed that he examined the head of bullock on 5-6-75. From the evidence of Dr. Joshi (P.W.2) it appears that the head of bullock which was examined by him must have been killed on 4-6-75. There may be a mistake either in the statement of the doctor or in the recording of the first information report. But the mistake has not been clarified by the prosecution Apparently the bullock which was killed on 5-6-75 at 4/4 30 p.m. its head could not have been sent for examination at 11.30 a.m., on the same day. There is no other evidence implicating the accused with the offence. The discovery of the chhuri at the instance of the applicant has been held to be without any consequence by the Courts below. There is no other evidence implicating the accused with the offence. The discovery of the chhuri at the instance of the applicant has been held to be without any consequence by the Courts below. In the circumstances it is unsafe to convict the applicant on the testimony of Badrilal (P.W.1) who is allowed to have seen the occurrence from a distance more particularly in the face of the discrepancy about the date of the offence which has not been clarified by the prosecution. In any event a reasonable doubt is created that it was the applicant and no other who was responsible for killing the bullock; and the benefit thereof must go to the applicant. The conviction of the applicant therefore cannot be sustained. Revision allowed.