Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code” hereinafter) is directed against the Judgment and order dated 04.03.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur (for short the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 228/1991, whereby the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 429, IPC and Section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act”); however, considering the maximum sentence under Section 2 of the Act, sentenced the appellant to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine further to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 2 of the Act. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order impugned, the appellant has filed the instant appeal. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the Judgment and order impugned, as also the record of the trial Court. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant. Learned Counsel submits that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable and there is no direct evidence regarding administering poison to the bulls by the appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that from the statements of prosecution witnesses, more particularly the eye-witness, it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who administered poison to the bulls, by which the bulls were killed and, therefore, the offence under Section 2 of the Act has been established beyond doubt against the appellant. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. PW. 2 Panna Lal lodged the FIR Exhibit P-4 on 010.1991 at 8:00 PM with the Police Station, Ogna, district Udaipur, stating therein that Chandan Bai came and informed him that her daughter-in-law PW. 3 Ganga Bai gave her one maize-leaves and told that she took out the same from the mouths of the bulls and that maize-leaves was containing poisonous tablet. Thereafter, PW. 3 Ganga Bai gave her one maize-leaves and told that she took out the same from the mouths of the bulls and that maize-leaves was containing poisonous tablet. Thereafter, PW. 3 Smt. Ganga, who is his brothers wife, told him that the appellant administered poisonous tablets in maize-leaves, gave the same to the bulls and as a result of which froth came out from the mouths of the bulls and they fell down. Something came out from the mouths of the bulls which were collected by his brothers wife and the same were found containing poisonous tablets. Thereafter, both the bulls died on the spot. On this report, the police registered the crime report and the investigation ensued. After usual investigation, a challan was led against the appellant for the offences noticed above. Charges under Section 429, IPC and Section 2 of the Act were framed against the appellant, to which the appellant denied the charges and sought trial. 6. PW. 3 Ganga Bai is the witness, who saw the appellant administering poisonous tablets to both the bulls. She has stated that while she was at the agricultural field, two bulls, one of which was of white colour and the another of whitish-red colour, were tied there. The appellant gave poisonous tablets to the bulls by mixing the same in the maize-leaves. She identified the appellant in the Court and stated that it was he, who administered the poisonous tablets to the bulls and thereafter ran away. She took out the maize-leaves containing poisonous tablet from the mouths of the bulls and gave it to her mother-in-law Chandan Bai. However, after sometime, approximately within half an hour, both the bulls, valuing Rs. 4,000/-died. She further stated that she saw the appellant administering poisonous tablets to the bulls. She stated that she informed the occurrence to PW. 2 Panna Lal and thereafter PW. 2 Panna Lal went to the police station and lodged the report. 7. PW. 2 Panna Lal stated that Chandan Bai came and informed that she was informed by her daughter in-law PW. 3 Smt. Ganga Bai that the appellant administered poisonous tablets alongwith maize leaves to both the bulls; however she took out the poisonous tablets from the mouths of the bulls and gave the same to her. The tablets were poisonous. Both the bulls, after admistering poisonous tablets, died within half an hour. 3 Smt. Ganga Bai that the appellant administered poisonous tablets alongwith maize leaves to both the bulls; however she took out the poisonous tablets from the mouths of the bulls and gave the same to her. The tablets were poisonous. Both the bulls, after admistering poisonous tablets, died within half an hour. He is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He stated that on seeing the tablets, he could say that these were poisonous tablets. The poisonous tablets were deposited by him with the police station. He has categorically denied the suggestion that he was having any inimical relation with the appellant. 8. PW. 1 Dr. Narendra Singh Jhala, the then Incharge of Veterinary Hospital, Gogunda, conducted the autopsy on the corps of the bulls and according to him, the cause of death of the bulls was failure of cardial and respiratory system, which was the result of poisoning. 9. PW. 4 Ram Kumar was a police constable, who took the incriminating articles to the FSL and stated that after obtaining forwarding letter from the office of the Superintendent of Police, he deposited the incriminating articles with the FSL in the sealed condition. PW. 5 Bhoor Singh is the Investigating Officer and proved the steps taken during investigation. 10. I have carefully scanned, evaluated and scrutinized the evidence on record. The appellant, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code, PW. 2 Panna Lal is harbouring ill-will against him and, therefore, he has been falsely implicated in the matter. In cross-examination, a specific question was put to PW. 2 Panna Lal that he is running a flour-mill and the poisonous tablets were brought by him for killing the mouses in the flour-mill, on which admitting the fact of running a flour mill, PW. 2 Panna Lal denied the suggestion of bringing the poisonous tablets by him. 11. PW . 2 Panna Lal is the author of the FIR and stated that the poisonous tablets were given to him by Chandan Bai, but Chandan Bai has not come in the witness box to prove this fact and as such it could not be established by the prosecution that the same tablets which were given by Chandan Bai to PW . 2 Panna Lal were deposited by him with the police station. 12. PW . 2 Panna Lal were deposited by him with the police station. 12. PW . 3 Ganga Bai stated that she collected the poisonous tablets from the mouth of the bulls. If the poisonous tablets came out from the mouths of the bulls, then how the bulls died, is a question which could not be explained, more particular for want to FSL report. The incriminating articles, though deposited in the FSL, but there is no FSL report on the record PW . 1 Dr. Narendra Singh Jhala, who conducted autopsy on the corps of the bulls, specifically admitted in the cross-examination that in absence of chemical report, he cannot give a definite opinion about the kind and nature of the poison. 13. In this view of the matter, it is a case of missing link evidence and the benefit thereof goes to the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court omitted to consider these infirmities in the prosecution case and, therefore, the impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order impugned dated 04.03.1993 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Sessions Case No. 228/1991, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the offences. The appellant is on bail and the bail bonds stand discharged.