JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.5.81 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 3 of the Preservation of Certain Animals Act. 1950 and sentenced him to six months R.l. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. 2. The short facts are that on 18.9.80 Kamji, P.W. 1 lodged a report at Police Station Kherwara stating that on 16.9.80 his son Lalu informed him at his residence that Jaita (accused) had caused the death of his bullock by causing injuries by the reverse side of the axe. On this report, a case under Section 429 IPC was registered. After investigation, a challan was submitted. To a charge under section 2 of the Preservation of Certain Animals Act, and alternative charge under 429 IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Kamji, P.W. 2 Laliya, P.W. 3 Dr. Mohanlal Sharma, P.W. 4 Ratna, P.W. 5 Amra, P.W. 6 Naniya and PW. 7 Keshar Singh. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied accusation. He stated that he was ill and he did not cause injury to any animal. The learned Sessions Judge held that the charge under section 2 of the Preservation of Certain Animals Act was not proved. He, however, found the charge under section 3 of the Act proved against the appellant and hence convicted and sentenced him as above. 3. Pointing out the infirmities in the prosecution case, Mr. Gani contends that the trial court has erred in convicting the appellant. According to him, the name of the accused was stated in the F.I.R. simply because the bullock was found lying in his field. 4. On the other hand, the learned P.P. supports the judgment of the trial court. 5. I have gone through the evidence. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 16.9.80 but the FIR was lodged on 18.9.80. Ttius, there was delay of two days in lodging the first information report. The police station was situate just 6 kms. away from the place of occurrence. No explanation of the delay is forthcoming. The delay is certainly fatal to the prosecution case, in the light of the other circumstances on record. 6. Ttius, there was delay of two days in lodging the first information report. The police station was situate just 6 kms. away from the place of occurrence. No explanation of the delay is forthcoming. The delay is certainly fatal to the prosecution case, in the light of the other circumstances on record. 6. It is also noticed that in the FIR, an attempt was made to make the incident of previous day i.e. of 17.9.1980, but thereafter, the date was changed to 16.9.1980. It is obvious that this correction was made after the registration of the case, because the same correction is recorded in the formal FIR chalked by the police. This date seems to have been changed to fit in occurrence with the medical evidence. 7. The occurrence was not witnessed by PW 1 Kamji. Lalu, PW 2 deposes to have seen the occurrence. According to him, when the accused was beating this bullock, Amra and Ratna were also present and they had seen the occurrence. PW 4 Ratna states that he was at his house when Laliya approached him and told him that the accused was beating his bullock and, therefore, he went to the field where he saw the accused caused one injury on the scapular region of the bullock. He emphatically denies that Amra had also reached the place of occurrence. He states that when he went to see the bullock there was none except Laliya. PW 5 Amra has his own story to tell. According to him,he and Ratna were going to fetch some part of the plough and at that time they had seen the occurrence. 8. Thus, according to Ratna, Amra did not at all go to the place of occurrence and he had not seen him there. Ratna also deposes that Amra had gone to fetch part of plough whereas Amra deposes to have gone to the place of occurrence alongwith Ratna. The contradictions appearing in the statements of the witnesses are not of minor nature. It is not safe to rely on the testimony of both the witnesses. In the FIR which was lodged on the third day, it was not stated that Ratna and Amra had witnessed the occurrence. This shows they had not seen the occurrence. 9. Then Ratna says that Laliya had approached him at his house to witness the occurrence, which fact is deposed by Laliya. In the FIR which was lodged on the third day, it was not stated that Ratna and Amra had witnessed the occurrence. This shows they had not seen the occurrence. 9. Then Ratna says that Laliya had approached him at his house to witness the occurrence, which fact is deposed by Laliya. This contradiction leads us to infer that even Laliya had not seen the occurrence. 10. There are material discrepancies in the police statement and the court statement of Laliya. In the court statement, he deposes that there was maize crop in the field of the accused where the bullock was hit, whereas in the police statement he stated that the bullock was hit in 'Jawar' crop. It is relevant to state that in the court statement Laliya says that there was no 'Jawar' crop in the field of the accused. Similarly, in the police statement, the witness did not state that even after he reached the place of occurrence the accused continued to cause injuries to the bullock, which facts he states in the court statement. It is obvious that the witness has made significant improvements. As already pointed out, Laliya does not say that he had gone to call Amra or Ratna whose houses were situate at some distance. By the testimony of Amra and Ratna, it is not borne out that their house were situate at such a distance from where they could hear the call of Laliya. Moreover, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded that demeanour of the witness. It has been recorded that the witness took lot of time in replying the questions and was very much nervous when he gave the statement. Laliya was 16 years of age at the time he gave the statement. It cannot be said that he was child of tender age. The fact that he did not withstand the test of cross examination and was nervous and took lot of time to reply the questions goes to show that he was a tutored witness and he had not seen the occurrence. No reliance can be placed on the statement of Laliya. 11. It seems that when the bullock was found lying dead in the field of the accused, it was presumed that the accused had caused injuries to it and the FIR was lodged implicating him. No reliance can be placed on the statement of Laliya. 11. It seems that when the bullock was found lying dead in the field of the accused, it was presumed that the accused had caused injuries to it and the FIR was lodged implicating him. In view of the serious infirmities in the prosecution case, it has to be accepted that the prosecution has not successfully brought home the guilt of the accused. At any rate the case is not free from doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has committed obvious error in convicting the appellant on the basis of the evidence produced in the case. 12. Consequently, the appeal succeeds. The conviction of the appellants set-aside He is acquitted of the offence. Fine if realised be refunded to theAppeal Allowed-Conviction Set-Aside. *******