JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is preferred by Amarji son of Kachru Patel, who stands convict under section 429, I. P. C. and section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act. 1950 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Doongarpur vide his judgment dated August 12, 1975. 2. The facts according to the prosecution were these. On 23.5.75. at 5 p.m. Cow of Lalji had gone to drink water at the cattle trough near the temple of Ramdeoji at village Fatehpura. When the cow was going after drinking water, the appellant came there and hurled two stones, which hit the cow. The cow fell down and died after sometime. P.W. 2 Heera mother of Lalji saw the incident. When Lalji returned to his house in the evening. She narrated him the incident. Two other witnesses Smt. Kanku P.W. 3 and Narainlal P.W. 4 are also eye witnesses of the incident. Lalji went to police station, Doongarpur, on the next morning and ledged the written report, Ex.P.5. A case was registered and during the course of the usual investigation the post-mortem examination of the dead-body of the cow was conducted. A challan was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur, who committed the case to the court of Sessions. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and his defence was of total denial. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Doongarpur, however, believed the three eye-witnesses namely P.W. 2 Mst. Heera, P.W.3, Kanku and P.W.4 Narainlal and convicted the appellant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. 4. At the out set, it may be observed that it was not disputed that the cow died an unnatural death, as it was evident from the statement of P. W. 7 Surendrasingh, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the cow and found the following injuries:- 1. Blood discharge from nose and mouth. 2. Bruise on the frontal bone in between both the eyes in 2" radius. 3. Bruise on the left flank of 11/2" radius. 4. Blood clot found on the human rest other organs placed normally. 5. Oesophagus blood clot found. 6. Stomach, Normal, but on the anterior surface of human blood clot found. 7. Brain-blood clot present on the brain. 5. Bruise on the frontal bone in between both the eyes in 2" radius. 3. Bruise on the left flank of 11/2" radius. 4. Blood clot found on the human rest other organs placed normally. 5. Oesophagus blood clot found. 6. Stomach, Normal, but on the anterior surface of human blood clot found. 7. Brain-blood clot present on the brain. 5. The opinion of the doctor was that the cow died as a result of brain haemorrhage, which was caused by some hard object. 6. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was delay in lodging the first information report and this fact throw a lot of a suspicion on the prosecution case, Lalji did not explain the delay. In the first information report, the names of the two witnesses P. W. 3 Kanku and P.W.4 Narainlal were mentioned. But Lalji would not have known about their names and this fact conclusively indicated that the appellant had been falsely implicated. The presence of P. W. 3 Mst. Kanku and P. W. 4 Narainlal was improbable at the scene of the incident. The interested testimony of Heera P. W. 2 could not be believed and in all probabilities. She did not see the incident. The appellant was falsely implicated on suspicion because of the long standing enmity. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments. In my opinion, the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant have great force P. W. 1 Lalji stated that her mother told that the appellant had hit the cow with two stones. However, he gave no reason whatsoever for not lodging the first information report promptly. He also admitted his enmity with the appellant for the last 2-3 years. The witness also admitted that before making the report, he had not met Mst. Kanku and Narainlal. Her mother did not mention him the name of any witness. From the statement of this witness, it is clear that he had enmity with the appellant. He also did not give any explanation about the delay in lodging the first information report and, therefore, he had the opportunity to weave out a false case against the appellant. Therefore, the first information report, Ex. P. 5 cannot be made use of to support the prosecution case. He also did not give any explanation about the delay in lodging the first information report and, therefore, he had the opportunity to weave out a false case against the appellant. Therefore, the first information report, Ex. P. 5 cannot be made use of to support the prosecution case. This creates a serious infirmity on the prosecution version of the incident It does appear that the two eye-witnesses were falsely introduced in the case. Lalji by any stretch of imagination could not have known the names of these two witnesses because his mother did not inform him the names of these two witnesses and he had not met them prior to the lodging of the first information report. This is another vital lacuna in the prosecution case, it raises a serious doubt about the presence of Mst. Kanku and Narainlal at the scene of the incident. P. W. 2 Mst. Heera stated that at the time of the incident, none-else was present there. This further negatives the presence of Mst. Kanku and Narainlal at the time of incident. 7. No doubt, both Mst. Kanku and Narainlal stated that they saw the appellant throwing two stones at the cow, which was hit by the stones P. W. 2 Mst. Kanku stated that she did not see Mst Heera at the time of the incident. She also stated that she did not talk with Heera or Lalji. The conduct of the witness is unusual in the sense that she did not stay at the scene of the incident even after seeing that the cow had fallen down. In view of the admission of the witness that she did not talk to Lalji and his mother, it is established that her name was falsely introduced in the first information report. I am, therefore, not prepared to believe her statement. The presence of P. W. 3 Narainlal at the scene of incident is quite improbable. He stated that after taking the telegram from the post office, he was going to deliver them in the town. In the way, he thought to see his land where he had grown vegetables. He saw the appellant who stepped down from the cycle and threw two stones, which hit the cow. He went to his land and then returned. He saw Mst. Heera weeping and sitting near the cow. The witness was confronted with his police statement. Ex. In the way, he thought to see his land where he had grown vegetables. He saw the appellant who stepped down from the cycle and threw two stones, which hit the cow. He went to his land and then returned. He saw Mst. Heera weeping and sitting near the cow. The witness was confronted with his police statement. Ex. D/3, wherein he did not mention that the stones hit the cow on the head and ribs. He falsely asserted that he so mentioned before the police. The witness lived in the town. The post office was also in the town and he had to distribute the telegram in the town and, therefore, he had no occasion to come to the village. He denied this suggestion that he was falsely deposing against the appellant because of come litigation between them. He stated that Mst. Heera was weeping but he did not go to her. This was unusual conduct on his part. Normally, he should have gone to Mst. Heera to sympathise with her. He also did not state that he contacted Mst. Heera or Lalji before the first information was lodged. He rather admitted that he did not talk the Lalji on the day of the incident or on the next day, In such circumstances, I am not prepared to believe this witness, 8. The prosecution, therefore, has failed to prove any offence against the appellant by cogent and reliable evidence. The testimony of the three witnesses does not inspire confidence. Suffice it to say about Mst. Heera that she stated that she saw the incident from her house. However, she did not give the distance of her house from the place of the incident. It is, therefore, doubtful whether she could see the incident from her house. In any case, her interested testimony in the circumstance of this case cannot be relied upon to fasten the accused with the guilt. It would be extremely unsafe to convict the appellant on the testimony of Mst. Heera, when the other two eye-witnesses had been disbelieved and the first information report was not promptly lodged. I am therefore of the view that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he was entitled to an acquittal. 9. It would be extremely unsafe to convict the appellant on the testimony of Mst. Heera, when the other two eye-witnesses had been disbelieved and the first information report was not promptly lodged. I am therefore of the view that the prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he was entitled to an acquittal. 9. In the result, the appeal is accepted, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doongarpur is set aside and appellant Amarji is acquitted of the offences under section 429, I.P.C. and section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950, the appellant is on bail and need not surrender to his bail-bonds, which are hereby cancelled.Appeal Allowed - Accused Acquitted. *******