JUDGMENT M. R. Verma, J.:- This is an appeal against the judgment dated March 23,1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una whereby the respondent/accused (here-after referred to as the accused) has been acquitted of the charges under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sectmn 11 of Ate Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. preferred by the State . 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on June 18, 1994 PW-1 Sarwan Kumar saw a bull lying in injured condition near the Jhugies of the accused. PW-2 Ajay Kumar, PW-3 Ravinder Kumar and PW-5 Shri Gogi also saw the bull in the injured condition. The bull was removed from that place in a Tractor to a nearby well. P W-1 Sarwan Kumar made statement Ext PA which was recorded by PW-10 Tilak Raj, H.C. On the basis of this, formal FIR Ext. PW-10/A was registered in Police Station, Una. During the course of investigation, the accused were arrested by the police on the basis of suspicion. While in custody, accused Jasin made a disclosure statement Ext. PB about having kept one Chapar and one Sumba’ in the Jhugi of accused Karim Baksh and pursuant to the said statement, he got. these weapons recovered vide memo. Ext. PW-12/B. Accused Karim Baksh also made a disclosure statement that after having washed Chapar and Sumba, he had given them to accused Jasin for being kept concealed. 3. The antemortem examination and autopsy of the injured bull, who had succumbed to the injuries, was conducted by PW-4 Brij Mohan Sohal, Vetenary Officer and his report about the antemortem examination is Ext PW-4/A and the autopsy findings are Ext PW-4/B. On being satisfied of the commission of the offence complained against the accused, the Officer-in-Charge, Police Station, Una submitted the charge-sheet against the accused which came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. Accusations under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act were put to them. They denied the same. The prosecution, to prove the accusations against the accused, examined as many as 12 witnesses. 4. The accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied their involvement in the commission of the offence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case. They denied the same. The prosecution, to prove the accusations against the accused, examined as many as 12 witnesses. 4. The accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code denied their involvement in the commission of the offence and claimed that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The accused, however, did not lead any defence. 5. The learned trial Magistrate found the accused not guilty and accordingly acquitted them, hence the present appeal. 6. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 7. Be it stated that there is no eye witness of the occurrence. PW-1 Sarwan Kumar, PW-2 Ajay Kumar, PW-3 Ravinder Kumar and PW-5 Gogi who had seen the bull lying injured, have not stated anything in their statements on the basis of which even an inference about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence may be drawn. 8. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution relied on the disclosure statements Exts. PB and PC respectively made by accused Jasin and Karim Baksh and the alleged consequential recover- of Chapar Ext P-l and Sumba Ext P-2 at the instance of accused Jasin from a Jhugi". 9. Disclosure statement Ext PB has been allegedly made by the accused i in the presence of Parmod Kumar and Chander Kumar. Parasod Kumar has been examined as P W-6. He has not supported the prosecution version about the alleged disclosure statement having been made by accused Jasin. Chander Mohan has been examined as PW-11. He supports the prosecution version about making of the aforesaid statement by accused Jasin in his examination-in-chief. PW-12 Krishan Chand, S.I. has recorded this statement and in his statement he has stated so. However, the statements of PW-11 Chander Mottan and PW-12 Krishan Chand cannot be said to be free from any suspicion P W-11 Chander Mohan has stated that he was called to the Police Station on June 24, 1994 and it was at that time that accused Jasin made the statement Ext PB. A perusal of the statement Ext PR. however, shows that it purports to have been made on June 20,1994 and not on June 24,1994. PW-12 Krtshan Chand has also admitted that the accused persons were arrested on the basis of suspicion. A perusal of the statement Ext PR. however, shows that it purports to have been made on June 20,1994 and not on June 24,1994. PW-12 Krtshan Chand has also admitted that the accused persons were arrested on the basis of suspicion. Thus, PW-6 Parmod Kumar having not supported this version, the statements of PW-11 and PW-12 are also suspicious, more so, because it is admitted by PW-12 Krishan Chand that due to causing of injuries to the bull there was resentment amongst the Hindus. The consequential recovery alleged to have been made on the basis of this statement vide Ext. PW-12/B is also equally suspicious. The marginal witnesses of this recovery are PW-7 Puran Chand and PW-8 Prem Prabhakar. They have not supported the prosecution version that Toka (Chapar) and Sumba in question were recovered at the instance of the accused. On the contrary, both of them have stated that these two weapons were taken out of a Jhugi without door by the police. Thus, recovering these weapons by the police from a Jhugi having no door, falsifies the disclosure statement as well as of the alleged recovery vide memo. Ext. PW-12/B. The recovery is rendered suspicious for one more reason, i.e. it is not mentioned in the recovery memo. Ext, PW-12/B as to who was the owner of the Jhugi from which the Chapar and Sumba were recovered. 10. The disclosure statement Ext. PC has also been recovered by PW-12 Krishan Chand in the presence of PW-6 Parmod Kumar and PW-11 Chander Mohan. For the reasons already assigned for disbelieving the making of the statement Ext. PB by accused Jasin, this statement can also not be believed as to have been voluntarily made by the accused. Moreover, this statement evidently has not led to any discovery, therefore, cannot be read in evidence. 11. In view of the above circumstances, the disclosure statement about the weapons of offence and consequential recovery, as alleged by the prosecution, is not cogently and firmly established and has rightly not been relied upon by the learned trial Magistrate. 12. The other circumstance relied on for the prosecution is that the injured bull was found in a field which is close to the Jhugi of the accused persons. It is, however, not the case of the prosecution that only the Jhugies of the accused existed at the place near which the injured bull was found. 12. The other circumstance relied on for the prosecution is that the injured bull was found in a field which is close to the Jhugi of the accused persons. It is, however, not the case of the prosecution that only the Jhugies of the accused existed at the place near which the injured bull was found. It is admitted by PW-12 Krishan Chand, Investigating Officer that in the near vicinity there are three or four other Jhugies. Thus, this circumstance is also of no help to the prosecution. 13. In view of the aforesaid conclusions, the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for any interference by this Court. 14. As a result, the appeal deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal dismissed.