JUDGMENT 1. - The prosecution case in short is that on 28.10.82, the bull of Nawla entered the field of Durga Ram, accused. While it was grazing in the field of the accused, the accused appellant came on the spot and gave beating to the bull by lathi to drive him off his field. The bull ran away and fell down in the field of Pokar Ram where it died. The report of the incidence was lodged by Nawla in the police station on 1.11.82. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1 Ladu and P.W. 2 Pokar as eye witnesses and P.W. 3 Nawla, the owner of the bull as witness who has stated that there was an extra judicial confession made by the accused appellant of killing of bull. Relying on the statements of eye-witnesses and the extra-judicial confession, the accused appellant was convicted under Section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950 (for short `the Act') and was to sentenced 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment to undergo further R.I. for 6 months. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that considering the late filing of the F.I.R. and the statement of the eye witnesses, the conviction of the accused appellant cannot sustain. It is also submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredient of Section 2 of the Act. On the other hand, learned public prosecutor has argued that the statements of witnesses supported with an evidence of extra judicial confession, clearly reveal that there was sufficient material on the record to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 3. I was taken through the statement of the eye-witness PW. 1 Ladu who has stated that Durga Ram (accused) has started giving beating to the bull of Pokar and has driven him out of his field. The beating was given for a considerable long period. The bull ran towards Poker's field and fell down. He has further stated that as the fields of the accused and Pokar were adjacent, the Pokar's bull entered the field of Durga (accused). From the aforesaid statement of P.W. 1, he is making a statement in regard to the bull of Pokar whereas the prosecution case is that the bull which was given beating and who has died belonged to Nawla and not that of Pokar. From the aforesaid statement of P.W. 1, he is making a statement in regard to the bull of Pokar whereas the prosecution case is that the bull which was given beating and who has died belonged to Nawla and not that of Pokar. Thus, the evidence of this witness is no help to the prosecution case. 4. P.W. 2 Pokar has deposed that when he was sitting at his dhani, he saw Durga chasing the bull of Nawla and was given beating to it. The bull entered into his field and fell down. When he reached to the spot, he found it dead. Next day morning, he took Bhika, Virdha, Amba and Teja to Durga's House. When all the persons have said to Durga that he has killed the bull, he has denied the fact. Thus, this witness does not speak about the holding of Panchayat nor he is aware of why and how the incidence started. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that right from beginning, the accused has denied the fact that he has killed the bull and that he has not tried to intervene when Durga was giving beating to the bull. 5. To prove the offence under Section 2 of the Act, the prosecution necessarily has to prove that there was an intention to kill the bull. Section 2 reads as under- 2. Killing a cow etc. Whoever intentionally kills a bull, ox or calf shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. 6. Section 2 of the Act requires that there was an intention to kill the bull, cow, ox and calf. If the prosecution has not proved the intention to kill, the conviction cannot be under Section 2 of the Act. The material ingredient to prove the guilt has not been proved by the prosecution. Two witnesses examined by the prosecution does not show that the act performed by the accused can ipso facto prove his intention to cause death of the bull. The Ex.P/11 is the report of the veternary doctor who has opined that in his opinion the above said animal may die due to loss of blood and rupture of diaphragm, due to fracture of 12th & 13th ribs. The Ex.P/11 is the report of the veternary doctor who has opined that in his opinion the above said animal may die due to loss of blood and rupture of diaphragm, due to fracture of 12th & 13th ribs. The doctor's statement and postmortem report does not indicate that the cause of death was due to the injuries caused by the accused alone. 7. On the basis of evidence on record, I do not find that the prosecution has proved the essential ingredient that the beating was given with an intention to kill the bull. If somebody's bull enter into another's field, it to is the natural action of driving the bull from his field and for the said purpose, he may use some force. Using of such force does not necessarily mean that there was an intention to kill the animal, in performing the act of driving out the bull from one's own 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the view that the is prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused appellant. The judgment and sentence of Sessions Judge, Balotra and sentence of 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment to undergo further R.I. for 6 months is set aside.Appeal Allowed. *******