Hon'ble SHARMA, J.— This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment/order dated 11.10.1994 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 52/1994, whereby the accused appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950 (here-in-after to be referred to as "RPCA Act") and sentenced as under: vr% eqyfteku uLlj] jlhn] Qt:] jQhd o nhuk mQZ nhuw dks /kkjk 2 vkj-ih-lh-,- ,DV ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k esa nks"kh Bgjkdj mDr vijk/k ds fy, mijksDr izR;sd eqyfte dks pkj pkj o"kZ ds l[r dkjkokl dh ltk ls rFkk ,d ,d gtkj :i;s ds vFkZn.M ls nf.Mr fd;k tkrk gSA vne vnk;xh vFkZn.M izR;sd eqyfte dks ,d ,d lky dk lk/kkj.k dkjkokl vkSj Hkqxrk;k tkosA tqekZus dh mDr 5000-00 :i;s dh jkf'k esa ls eqLrxhl Hkheflag dks crkSj {kfriwfrZ ds nks gtkj :i;s fn;s tkus dk Hkh vkns'k fn;k tkrk gSA tks ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy@fjohtu Hkheflag dks fn;s tk;sA tCr 'kqnk eky eqdnek ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy o fjohtu u"V dj fn;k tkosA eqyfteku dh iwoZ dh iqfyl o U;kf;d vfHkj{kk dh vof/k dks bl ltk esa eqtjk fn;k tkosA** 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Bheem Singh S/o Sindha Ram, R/o village Maliyarjat, Police Station, Tijara, District Alwar submitted a report mentioning therein that on 1.3.1994 his one cow did not return. On 2.3.1994, Manphool and Mahendra Singh informed him that on the previous day at about 7.00 PM, the cow had been laid down by Fajroo, Raseed, Nassar and Deenu, by caste Mev near nalla and they were cutting the cow. On this information, he went to the spot and found that the skin of the cow was lying on the spot and they took away the flesh. On the basis of said report, the police registered a case No. 37/1994 for the offence under Section 2 of RPCA Act. Thereafter the investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, the police filed the challan against the accused persons for the aforesaid offence. Thereafter the charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 2 of RPCA Act, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. Thereafter the charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 2 of RPCA Act, who denied for the same and claimed for trial. The prosecution produced its witnesses and got exhibited some documents. The statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned trial court vide judgment/order dated 11.10.1994 convicted and sentenced the accused appellants as indicated here-in-above. 3. Against the said judgment, this appeal has been filed by the accused appellants. 4. Mr. R.K. Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Atul Sharma counsel for the appellants has contended that the trial court while passing the aforesaid impugned judgment has not considered the provisions of the RPCA Act. He has further contended that the prosecution has also failed to prove the guilt against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. He has further contended that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 1st March, 1994 at 7.00 PM, whereas the report was lodged on 2nd March, 1994 at about 5.00 PM and no reasonable explanation was given to lodge the First Information Report after expiry of 22 hours and admittedly the police station is hardly at a distance of 5 kms. He has further contended that there was a specific contradiction in the contents of First Information Report i.e. Ex. 2 and the statement recorded by the police under Section 161 CrPC and thereafter the statement recorded by the court. So far as accused Rafiq is concerned, learned counsel has contended that he has not been named in the FIR and so far as accused Fazru is concerned, learned counsel has contended that he has died, as such the appeal qua accused Fazru stands abated. 5. He has further contended that Mahendra and Manphool are the close relatives of the informant Bheem Singh, hence their evidence should not have been considered by the court below. 6. Mr. Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel is repeatedly requesting to this Court that in this matter, there was no eye witness and on account of lack of eye witness and other evidence, the accused persons should be acquitted. 6. Mr. Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel is repeatedly requesting to this Court that in this matter, there was no eye witness and on account of lack of eye witness and other evidence, the accused persons should be acquitted. Lastly he has requested that the case of the accused persons does not jumps under Section 2 of the RPCA Act, hence the appeal filed by the accused persons Nassar, Raseed, Fafiq and Deena @ Deenu should be allowed; the judgment of the trial court be set-aside and the accused persons should be acquitted. 7. In the alternate, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants has contended that he is not challenging the conviction part of the judgment of the court below, but he is only requesting to this court that looking to the fact that occurrence took place in the year 1994 i.e. about 21 years' ago from today; the accused persons are facing the trial since the last 21 years; when the occurrence took place, the accused persons (except accused Fazru) are old aged persons; the accused appellant Nassar has remained in custody for about 50 days, accused appellant Raseed has remained in custody for about 49 days; accused Rafiq has remained in custody for about 48 days; and accused Deena @ Deenu has remained in custody for about 32 days; they are married persons having the children of marriageable age, hence either they should be given the benefit of probation u/Sec. 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Sec. 360 CrPC; and if not; then they should be released for the period already undergone by them in confinement, as indicated here-in-above. 8. On the other hand, Dr. R.S. Shekhawat, learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He has contended that neither the benefit of probation should be given to the appellant nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. The trial court, after due appreciation of evidence, has rightly passed the judgment convicting and sentencing the accused persons, as indicated above. He has contended that neither the benefit of probation should be given to the appellant nor he should be released for the period already undergone by him in confinement. The trial court, after due appreciation of evidence, has rightly passed the judgment convicting and sentencing the accused persons, as indicated above. He has further drawn the attention of this Court on the relevant part of the judgment of the Court below, which is reproduced as under: ^^blesa dksbZ nks er ugha gS fd bl izdj.k esa dksbZ Hkh p{kqn'khZ xokg vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls bl izdkj dk izLrqr ugha gqvk gS fd eqyfteku }kjk mlus eqLrxhl dh xk; dks dkVus gq, ns[kk gksA bl izdkj.k esa dgkuh bl izdkj gS fd vkbZ gS fd p{kqn'khZ xokgku egsUnz ih-M- 3 euQwy ih-M- 4 us eqyfteku dks xk; dk ekal iksVyh esa cka/kdj ys tkrs gq, dk n`"; ns[kk gS] mUgksaus ;g n`"; tc ns[kk rc fctyh cUn gksus ds mijkUr os uys ds ikl yxs VªkUlQkjej esa fctyh ds u vkus ds dkj.k dh tkap djus x;s rc os VkWpZ ysdj x;s Fks vkSj mUgksus ;g n`"; ns[kk FkkA** 9. He has further drawn the attention of this Court on the relevant part of the judgment of the Court below, which is reproduced as under: ^^bl rF; dks izekf.kr djus ds fy, vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls ih-M- 1 kqHkjke MkWDVj gS] ih-M- 2 Hkheflag ftldh xk; crkbZ tkrh gS rFkk ih-M- 3 egsUnz o ih-M- 4 euQwy gS ftUgksaus eqyfteku dks xk; dk ekal iksVks esa cka/kdj ys tkrs gq, ns[kk x;k gS] gSA buds c;ku vfHk;kstu i{k us lk{; esa djok;s gSaA ih-M- 1 MkW- 'kqHkjke us e`rd xk; dk 'ko ijh{k.k fnukad 3-3-94 dks iqfyl izfrosnu ij fd;k x;k gSA ftlus viuh ijh{k.k fjiksVZ ,Dth ih-1 dks izekf.kr fd;k gSA c;ku esa bl xokg us xk; dh e`R;q 36&48 ?kaVs ds e/; gksuk crk;k gS vkSj xk; dh e`R;q dk dkj.k vfuf'pr gksuk cryk;k gSA bl xokg ls ;ksX; odhy eqy- }kjk tks ftjg dh xbZ gSa mlesa Hkh bl xokg us ;g tkfgj fd;k gS fd xk; dks dkVk x;k Fkk ;k mldh izkd`frd e`R;q gqbZ Fkh ;g Li"V ugha cryk;k gSA pwafd xk; ds vUn:uh vax ugha Fks] blfy, mudks tkap gsrq fHktok;s tkus dk iz'u gh iSnk ugha gksrk gSA xk; dks dkVus ls ;k mldh izkd`frd e`R;q gksus ds ckjs esa mlus dksbZ fuf'fpr :i ls jk; ugha nh gS o u dqN Hkh Li"V bl ckjs esa cryk;k gSA D;ksafd og p{kqn'khZ xokg Hkh ugha gSA** 10. Lastly, he has drawn the attention of this Court on the relevant part of the judgment of the Court below, which is reproduced as under:- ^^bl izdkj mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij lk{; dk fo'ys"k.k djus ij ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd eqLrxhl Hkheflag dh ,d xk; ftldk iw.kZ fooj.k izkFkfedh ,Dth ih-2 esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS dks fnukad 1-3-94 dks xzke ekfy;jtV ds uys ds ikl eqyfteku us idM+dj dkVk vkSj ftldk ekal tc os ys tk jgs Fks rks mudks jaxs gkFkksa idM+k x;k vkSj mudh fu'kk nsgh ls ekal dkVus o [kky dks vyx djus ds gfFk;kj eqyfteku ls cjken fd;s x;s] eqyfteku us viuh bfRryk ls ;s cjkenxh;ka djokbZA bl izdkj eqyfteku }kjk mijksDr vijk/k dkfjr fd;k tkuk leLr lansgksa ls ijs lk{; vfHk;kstu ls izekf.kr gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA vr% mijksDr leLr lk{; rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks voyksdu djus ls eqyfteku }kjk mDr vijk/k fd;k tkuk izekf.kr gksrk gS vkSj os /kkjk 2 vkj-ih-lh-,- ,DV ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k ds nks"kh ik;s tkrs gSaA vr% eqy- uLlj] jlhn] Qt:] jQhd o nhuw mQZ nhuk dks /kkjk 2 vkj-ih-lh-,- ,DV ds rgr n.Muh; vijk/k ds vkjksi dk nks"kh Bgjk;k tkrk gSA** 11. He has further read out the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that under Section 2 of the Act, the sentence of 10 years' is provided, but the trial Court has already granted the relaxation by not awarding 10 years' sentence. Such type of offences are increasing in the State of Rajasthan day-by-day. People are killing the cows and other animals and they do not think at the time of killing the cattle that on this count whole of the world will become imbalanced and it will create numerous problems. Hence the judgment of the trial court should not be disturbed by this Court and appeal filed by the accused persons should be dismissed. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material made available to me. 13. PW-1 Shubh Ram, who is the Veterinary Doctor at Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar gave the statement before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar and from his statement it is clear that the deceased animal was cow and she was killed in a cruel manner. 13. PW-1 Shubh Ram, who is the Veterinary Doctor at Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar gave the statement before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar and from his statement it is clear that the deceased animal was cow and she was killed in a cruel manner. The relevant part of whose statement is reproduced as under: ^^lkjka'k esa esjh jk; esa fuEu gS& 1- mifLFkr dh xbZ peMh&eqag&flj&lhax ls xk; izrhr gksrh FkhA 2- ;kSuh dk gksuk ;g n'kkZrk Fkk fd ;g L=h fyax FkhA 3- tcM+s esa vkB nkarksa dk gksus ls e/; vk;q dh FkhA 4- dV ,tst tks peMh ij Fks og fu;fer FksA bldk eryc /kkjnkj gfFk;kj ls peMh mrkjh xbZ gSA lHkh vkarfjd vax o ekal gfM~M;ka ekStwn ugha FkhA vr% e`R;q dk le; yxHkx 36 ls 48 ?kaVs tkap ls iwoZ dh FkhA pksV izfrosnu Ex.P1 gSA tks esjh jk; Fkh o A to B esjs nLr[kr gSaA** 14. PW-2 Bheem Singh, gave the statement before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar on 31.8.1994. PW-2 Bheem Singh, gave the statement before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar on 31.8.1994. The relevant part of whose statement is reproduced as under: ^^djhc 6 ekg igys xk; ejh FkhA eSa csgM+ taxy esa xk; pjk jgk FkkA 'kke ds le; xk; ysdj ?kj dh rjQ pyk rks xk; jkLrs esa jg xbZA ?kj vkdj xk; laHkkyh FkhA xk; dk jax xSneSyk Fkk uk dkyh uk lQsn] xk; nw twu FkhA eSa xk; dks ryk'k djus x;k fdUrq vU/ksjk gks x;k fQj vk x;kA lqcg ryk'k djus x;k rks egsUnz o euQwy feysA bUgksaus iwNk fd dSls ?kwe jgk gSA eSaus dgk fd esjh xk; taxy esa jg xbZA mUgksaus crk;k fd xk; ds lkFk ukys esa gjdr ckth djh gSA gjdr djus okys jlhn] jQhd] nhuk] uLlj] Qt: FksA egsUnz oxSjk us crk;k fd bu vknfe;ksa us xk; dqbZ ij uys esa muds ?kjksa ds ikl dkVh gSA bl ij euQwy] eSa o egsUnz uys ij x;sA ogka [kwu iM+k Fkk vkSj dqbZ esa xk; dk peMk iM+k FkkA og eSaus peM+k igpku fy;kA lhax] dku lHkh Fkh tks eSaus igpku fy;sA esjh xk; ds FksA dqbZ ij nks vkneh NksM+s vkSj frtkjk Fkkus ij fjiksVZ djus x;kA fjiksVZ VkbZi djkbZ Fkh tks iz-ih- 2 gS bl ij eSaus vaxwBk fu'kkuh dh FkhA bldh ,QvkbZvkj iz-ih- 3 gS bl ij esjk vaxwBk fu'kkuh gSA iqfyl ekSds ij xbZA uD'kk ekSdk iqfyl us cuk;k tks iz-ih- 4 gS bl ij esjk vaxwBk fu'kkuh gSA ekSds ls e`rd xk; dk flj] [kky] tCr fd;s ftldh QnZ] iz-ih- 5 gSA e`rd xk; dh [kky] lhax] flj ns[k dj dgk fd ;g ogh gS tks iqfyl us esjh ejh gqbZ xk; ds cjken dj lhy eksgj fd;s FksA fjiksVZ Hkkstk jke ds yM+ds xqYyk ls fy[kokbZA mlus eq>s uLlj] jQhd] Qt:] nhuk o jlhn ds uke crk;s ikapksa eqyfte gkftj vnkyr gSA eSa i<+k fy[kk gwaA eq>s irk ugha eqyfte us D;ksa xk; dkVh] fQj dgk fd eqyfteku us [kkus ds fy, esjh xk; dkVh FkhA** 15. PW.13 Mahendra gave the statement before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar on 31.8.1994. PW.13 Mahendra gave the statement before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar on 31.8.1994. The relevant part of whose statement is reproduced as under: ^^Hkheflag dks tkurk gwaA djhc 6 ekg igys Hkheflag dh xk; dkVh FkhA ukys ds ikl xk; dVh FkhA jkr ds 9&10 cts dh ckr gSA eSa vius dqa, ij FkkA eSa xsgwa esa ikuh ns jgk FkkA esjs lkFk euQwy FkkA fctyh fMe gks xbZ ;wt Vadh ij ls mM x;k mldks ns[kus ge x;sA VªkalQkeZj ij x;s tks uys ds ikl fMiks ij yx jgk gSA eSaus xk; dkVrs ugha ns[kkA eSus iksV cka/krs ns[kkA xk; dk peMk mBk dj dq,a esa Mkyrs ns[kkA uLlj] jlhn] jQhd] Qt:] nhuk dks ns[kk Fkk tks gkftj vnkyr gSA ;gh iksV cka/k jgs Fks o dqbZ esa peMk Mky jgs FksA geus buls iwNk rks dqN ugha cksysA geus VkpZ dh ykbZV ls budks igpkuk FkkA eqyfteku dk ?kj ukys ds ikl gh gS iksV mBkdj ;s ys x;sA ge ogka ls ns[kdj viuh Vadh ds ikl vk x;sA nwljs jkst lqcg Hkhe feykA mlus dgk fd rqe fctyh ij Fks esjh xk; jg xbZ oks ns[kh D;kA geus crk;k fd esoksa us ukys esa xk; dkVh gSA geus mlus dgk fd peMk iMk gS py dj igpku ysA ekSds ij eSa] euQwy] Hkhe x;sA ogka [kwu iM+k FkkA peM+k dqbZ esa iMk Fkk ftls Hkhe us igpku dj dgk fd esjh xk; dk peMk gSA Hkhe frtkjk iqfyl esa vk x;kA eqyfteku us xk; D;ksa dkVh irk ughaA fQj dgk fd [kkus ds fy, dkVh vkSj rks D;ksa dkVsA iqfyl us ekSds ij vkdj [kky oxSjk xk; dh tCr dh FkhA dqbZ esa tks [kky Fkh mls xkao okyksa us iqfyl ds lkeus fudkyhA eqyfteku gekjs xkao ds gh jgus okys gSA** 16. PW-4 Manphool gave the statement before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar on 31.8.1994. PW-4 Manphool gave the statement before the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, District Alwar on 31.8.1994. The relevant part of whose statement is reproduced as under:- ^^'kiFkiwoZd dgk fd Hkhe o gkftj vnkyr eqyfteku dks tkurk gwaA djhc 6 ekg igys dh ckr gSA xk; uyk esa ekjhA jkr ds 9&10 cts dh ckr gSA eSa ml le; fctyh ij ikuh pyk jgk FkkA egsUnz esjs lkFk FkkA nks rkj esa fctyh vk jgh FkhA ,d esa ugha vk jgh FkhA eSaus egsUnz ls dgk fd gks lds ;wt mM x;kA eSa o egsUnz Vadh ij ;wt ns[kus o cka/kus x;sA jkLrs esa dq, ds ikl jlhn] jQhd] uLlj] Qt:] nhuk us iksV cka/k dj rS;kj FksA xk; dkVh mldh iksV cka/khA gedks ns[k dj xk; dh [kky dqa, ij Mky nhA geus VkpZ dh ykbZV ls eqyfteku dks igpku fy;kA geus eqyfteku ls dqN ugha dgkA ;wt cka/k dj ge [ksr ij vk x;sA nwljs fnu lqcg Hkhe flag feykA ftlus dgk fd dy 'kke esjh xk; jg xbZ ns[kh gS D;kA geus dgk fd dqbZ ds ikl ukys esa xk; dVh gS] jlhn] jQhd] uLlj] Qt:] nhuk dks ogka ns[kkA Hkhe us dgk fd og txg crkvksa rks ge Hkhe dks ysdj ogka vk;sA dqbZ ds vUnj xk; dh peM+h Fkh ftls ns[k dj Hkhe us dgk fd esjh xk; dh peMh gSA ogka [kwu Hkh iMk FkkA ekSds ij eSa] Hkhe o egsUnz rhuksa x;sA xkao ds vknfe;ksa dks fn[kk;kA Hkhe us iqfyl esa fjiksVZ dj nhA gedks irk ugha xk; D;ksa dkVhA eqyfteku iksV esa xk; dk ekal cka/k dj ys x;sA ekal D;ksa ys x;s] eq>s irk ughaA iqfyl ekSds ij vkbZA iqfyl us [kky cjken dh FkhA** 17. PW.15, Jeevan Singh is SHO Police Station, Tijara, who filed the charge sheet against the accused persons before the court below. 18. PW.6 Maha Singh is the witnesses of site plan. PW.15, Jeevan Singh is SHO Police Station, Tijara, who filed the charge sheet against the accused persons before the court below. 18. PW.6 Maha Singh is the witnesses of site plan. The relevant part of whose statement is reproduced as under: ^^djhc 6 ekg igys dh ckr gSA iqfyl us uD'kk iz-ih- 04 esjs le{k cuk;kA bl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSA iqfyl us xk; dh [kky] tCr fd;s ftldh QnZ iz-ih- 5 cukbZ ftl ij , ls ch esjs gLrk{kj gSaA flj] dku] lhax] o iwaN vkfVZdy 1 gS rFkk [kky vkfVZdy 2 gSA ekSds ij esjs lkeus lhy eksgj fd;s FksA eqyfte jlhn ls ,d Nqjh o ,d iYyh cjken dj tfj;s QnZ iz-ih- 08 tCr fd;k ftl ij ,d ls ch essjs gLrk{kj gSA uksV& lhycUn iSdsV U;k;ky; ds le{k [kksykA** 19. PW-7 is Surajbhan. The relevant part of whose statement is reproduced as under: ^^djhc 6 ekg igys iqfyl ekSds ij vkbZ vkSj uD'kk ekSdk iz-ih- 4 cuk;k bl ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSaA ekSds ls iqfyl us tfj;s QnZ iz-ih- 5 [kky xk; dh cjken dj tCr dh bl ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSaA flj] dku] lhax] iwaN Hkh iqfyl us tCr dj i-ih- 7 QnZ cukbZ bl ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSaA budks lhy eksgj ekSds ij fd;kA jlhn eqyfte ls Nwjh o iYyh cjken dh ftldh QnZ iz-ih- 8 gS bl ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSaA jQhd ls ,d dqYgkM+h cjken dh ftldh QnZ iz-ih- 9 cukbZ bl ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSaA uLlj ls ,d jLlk IykfLVd tCr fd;k ftldh QnZ iz-ih- 10 cukbZ bl ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSaA lhy eksgj QnZ cjkenxh LFky ds uD'ks i-ih- 11 o 12 gSa bu ij lh ls Mh esjs gLrk{kj gSaA** 20. PW-8 is Chandrapal, who is the investigation officer of the case. He has given the statement on the basis of evidence collected by him. PW.9 is Rohtash Singh, who is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at Police Station, Tijara, District Alwar. 21. I have also gone through the statements recorded by the trial court under Sec. 313 CrPC. PW-8 is Chandrapal, who is the investigation officer of the case. He has given the statement on the basis of evidence collected by him. PW.9 is Rohtash Singh, who is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police at Police Station, Tijara, District Alwar. 21. I have also gone through the statements recorded by the trial court under Sec. 313 CrPC. In the statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused persons have not given any explanation regarding the charges levelled against them and in routine they have answered each and every question by saying ^^xyr gS** ;k ^^irk ugha** - When the question was put as to why the charges were framed against them, they did not give any satisfactory explanation. 22. It is a fact that there is no eye witness in this matter, but the evidence which has been submitted by the prosecution connects and accused persons from the alleged offence on circumstantial basis. Circumstantial evidence proves that the accused persons have committed and aforesaid offence, which falls under Section 2 of the RPCA Act. For ready reference, Section 2 of the RPCA Act of 1950 is reproduced as under: "2. Killing a cow etc.- whoever intentionally kills a bull, cow, 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." 23. It is also, a fact that Bheem Singh (PW-2), Mahendra (PW.3), and Manphool (PW. 4) have made the statement before the court that they saw the accused appellants while collecting the meat in Potli (cloth) and they are the eye witnesses of the said act of the accused persons. They have also stated that they saw that the accused persons were drowning the skin of the cow in the well. 24. I have not observed anything in whole of the judgment passed by the court below or from the statement of the witnesses, which may draw inference that the accused persons and the complainant were having previous enmity. I have also not observed anything on the basis of which the statements of these witnesses ought not to have been considered by the court below. 25. Mr. Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel is repeatedly requesting to this Court that the accused appellant Rafiq has not been named in the First Information Report Ex..P/2, hence no case is made out against accused Rafiq. 26. 25. Mr. Mathur, learned Sr. Counsel is repeatedly requesting to this Court that the accused appellant Rafiq has not been named in the First Information Report Ex..P/2, hence no case is made out against accused Rafiq. 26. Upon that argument, I have also observed that Axe, which has been used for cutting the cow, has been recovered at the instance of accused appellant Rafiq. About that Axe, he passed on the information Ex.P.19 to the Investigation Officer, Rohitash, PW.9. The aforesaid fact was also confirmed by PW.7 Surajbhan and I do not think it proper to accept this argument of Mr. Mathur that only on this ground the accused appellant Rafiq should be acquitted because his name did not find place in the FIR, while his act is also serious, which connects the accused person from the aforesaid offence. In the result: (i) The appeal filed by accused Fazru stands dismissed as abated. (ii) So far as the appeal filed by other accused appellants is concerned, I do not think it proper to allow the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment/order dated 11.10.1994 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar in Sessions Case No. 52/1994. (iii) The accused persons are on bail. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. (iv) Dy. Registrar (Judl.) is directed to send the record of this case back immediately to the Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar. (v) Addl. Sessions Judge, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar is also directed to take steps against the accused persons for serving out rest part of the sentence, as awarded to them by him, in accordance with law.