ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. This criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants Punna, Hakru and Lakhma being aggrieved with the judgment dated 27.04.1993 passed by Sessions Judge, Banswara (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) in Sessions Case No.78/1991, whereby the trial court has convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of 1950' hereinafter) and sentenced them to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, further to undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant Punna died, hence, the appeal preferred by him stands abated. 3. As per the prosecution story, on 10.12.1990, on the basis of a secret information received from one informant, the police personnels viz. PW.1 Mahendra Singh-Constable, PW.3 Rajendra Singh-Constable, PW.4 Karnal Singh-ASI of Police Station, Sadar Banswara nabbed three persons viz. Puna, Hakru and Laxman at village Jhupel with a dead body of a cow, which was cut into pieces. On being interrogated, all the accused persons informed that they have killed the cow and cut it into pieces for the purpose of eating. As per the prosecution story, clothes and hands of all the three accused persons were smeared with blood, and an axe, knife and Ranpi stained with flesh and blood were also recovered. All the accused-persons were arrested by the police and the remains of cow i.e. flesh, skin and other parts of its body were also recovered and took to the police station. As per the prosecution story the police conducted the proceedings in the presence of two witnesses viz. Gamira and Ramchandra. 4. On the next day, the post mortem of the cow was conducted by PW.2 Dr. Natwar Lal Dosi, who has opined that flesh recovered by the police is of a cow aged 5 years and the cause of death of the said cow was due to cutting of its neck by any sharp edged instrument like an axe or big knife. 5. Natwar Lal Dosi, who has opined that flesh recovered by the police is of a cow aged 5 years and the cause of death of the said cow was due to cutting of its neck by any sharp edged instrument like an axe or big knife. 5. All the three accused-appellants were charged for the offence punishable under section 2 of the Act of 1950 and to prove the charge against them, the prosecution had produced as many as four witnesses and also exhibited Ex.P/1 - Post Mortem Report prepared by PW.2 Natwar Lal Dosi, Ex.P/2 - Site Map prepared by the police, Ex.P/3, P/4 and Ex.P/5 - Recovery Memos vide which an axe, a knife, ranpi, babool stick, skin of the cow and its remains were recovered, Ex.P/6 Parcha Kayami, Ex.P/7 - First Information Report and Ex.P/8 to P/10 Arrest Memos of the accused-appellants. The statements of the accused-appellants were recorded under section 313 CrPC and one defence witness viz. D.W.1 Gamira was produced. 6. The trial court after taking into consideration the prosecution evidence has held the accused-appellants guilty of the offence punishable under section 2 of the Act of 1950 and convicted them for the said offence and sentenced them to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- each. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants - Hakru and Lakhma has argued that as a matter of fact the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under section 2 of the Act of 1950 by producing cogent and reliable evidence. It is argued that as per the prosecution, the whole proceedings were conducted by the police on 10.12.1990 in the presence of two persons viz. Gamira and Ramchandra but the prosecution has failed to produce them as prosecution witnesses. It is contended that Gamira was produced in defence as DW.1, who has specifically stated that the police did not seize the skin and flesh of the cow or axe, knife and other weapons in his presence and he was forced to put signatures on the recovery memos of said things at police station only. 8. It is contended that Gamira was produced in defence as DW.1, who has specifically stated that the police did not seize the skin and flesh of the cow or axe, knife and other weapons in his presence and he was forced to put signatures on the recovery memos of said things at police station only. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that though the prosecution witnesses PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 in their statements have stated that the clothes of the accused-appellants were smeared with cow blood but neither the said clothes were seized by the police nor they were produced in the court. It is also argued that though as per the prosecution the blood stained axe, ranpi, big knife and a babool stick were recovered from the spot but the said weapons were not sent for examination to the FSL to ascertain that the said articles contain cow blood or flesh. Learned counsel for the appellants has further argued that all the prosecution witnesses viz. PW.1 Mahendra Singh, PW.3 Rajendra Singh, PW.4 Karnal Singh have specifically admitted in their statements that they did not see the accused-appellants killing the cow. Learned counsel for the appellants has, therefore, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under section 2 of the Act of 1950 beyond reasonable doubt but the trial court has illegally convicted and sentenced them for the above offence. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that as the prosecution has sufficiently proved the charge against the accused-appellants, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced them vide impugned judgment. 10. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties, perused the impugned judgment and carefully scrutinized the record of the case. 11. PW.1 Mahendra Singh, PW.3 Rajendra Singh, PW.4 Karnal Singh in their statements have stated that on 10.12.1990 they nabbed the accused-appellants Harku, Lakhma and deceased Puna Ram with the skin, flesh and other remains of a cow at village Jhupel. They arrested the accused-appellants and also seized the cow's skin, flesh and other remains and also seized an axe, knife, ranpi and a babool stick smeared with blood and flesh in the presence of two witnesses viz. Gamira and Ramchandra, however, they were not produced by the prosecution and Gamira was produced in defence as DW.1. They arrested the accused-appellants and also seized the cow's skin, flesh and other remains and also seized an axe, knife, ranpi and a babool stick smeared with blood and flesh in the presence of two witnesses viz. Gamira and Ramchandra, however, they were not produced by the prosecution and Gamira was produced in defence as DW.1. He has specifically stated that neither the accused-appellants were arrested in his presence nor cow's skin, flesh and the weapons were recovered by the police in his presence. He has also stated that the police has forced him to sign the recovery memos at police station. PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 in their statements have stated that the clothes of all the three accused persons were smeared with blood, however, the said blood smeared clothes were not recovered by them and were also not produced before the court. The aforesaid prosecution witnesses have also stated in their statements that they had recovered an axe, big knife, ranpi and a babool stick smeared with blood and flesh of a dead cow, however, the said recovered articles were not sent for examination to the FSL to ascertain that the said articles contain cow blood or flesh. All the above referred prosecution witnesses have categorically admitted in their statements that they did not see the accused appellants killing the cow. 12. No other cogent or reliable evidence is produced by the prosecution to connect the accused-appellants with the commission of crime. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge of killing of a cow by the accused-appellants on 10.12.1990 at village Jhupel and the trial court has grossly erred in convicting the accused-appellants for the offence punishable under section 2 of the Act of 1950 so also sentencing them to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and in imposing a fine of Rs.500/- each. 14. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 27.04.1993 passed by Sessions Judge, Banswara in Sessions Case No.78/1991 convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under section 2 of the Act of 1950 is set aside. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds stand discharged.