Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) The abovenamed accused-appellant has preferred this appeal from jail against the judgment and order dated 9.9.1999 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta in Sessions Case No. 178/96 by which he convicted the accused- appellant for the offence under section 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') and sentenced him to undergo two years' RI and pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' RI.
(2.) Since the accused-appellant was not being represented by any counsel, this Court on 17.8.2000 appointed Shri B.M. Bhojak amicus curiae, who has argued the case on behalf of the accused-appellant.
(3.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are as follows : PW 1 Gheesu Singh lodged a report Ex.P/1 before PW 9 Suresh Dutt Sharma, SHO Police Station Degana on 22.8.1995 at about 2.30 p.m. stating inter alia that on the night of 16.8.1995 at about 10.00 p.m., accused-appellant chopped off the neck of the cow by knife and thus, killed the cow and at that time, this incident was seen by PW 3 Girdhari Singh and PW 4 Hari Ram, who were going at that time through the way. It is further stated that on the next day, PW 3 Girdhari Singh and PW 4 Hari Ram narrated the whole incident to the villagers and on being enquired, it was found that accused-appellants purchased a cow for Rs. 100/- from a person living in village Barna and accused- appellant was not traceable, but thereafter, he was found and village people assembled and accused-appellant was asked and upon this, accused-appellant told them that he purchased the cow for Rs. 100/- and he also confessed that' he has killed the cow as he wanted to sell the skin of cow so that he could earn more money. On this report, police registered the case; chalked out police FIR Ex.P /2; and started investigation. During investigation, the post-mortem of the dead body of the cow was got conducted by PW 6 Dr. Satyanarain Sharma, who prepared the report-Ex.P/6 and in that report, he has stated that since there was only skeleton of the cow before him, therefore, cause was not ascertained in the absence of visceral organ. Thereafter, the accused-appellant was arrested on 22.8.1995 through Ex.P/5 by PW 9 Suresh Dutt Sharma. On 23.8.1995 accused-appellant gave information Ex.P/ 7 about the recovery of the knife and he also gave information Ex.P/8 on 24.8.1995 about the recovery of the skin of the cow alleged to have been killed by accused-appellant and in pursuance of these informations (Ex.P/ 7 and Ex.P/8), on 24.8.1995, in presence of motbir witnesses PW 8 Partaram and Bhanwar Singh, PW 9 Suresh Dutt Sharma recovered the knife and skin of the cow from the house of the accused-appellant through Ex.P/12. After usual investigation, police submitted challan against the accused-appellant in the Court of Magistrate and from where the case was committed to the Court of Session and thereafter, the case was transferred to the Special Court (SC/ST Cases), Merta. On 17.2.1997 a charge under section 2 of the Act of 1950 was framed against ate accused-appellant. The charge was read over and explained to the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and got exhibited several documents and, thereafter, the statement of accused-appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. After recording evidence and conclusion of trial, the learned Judge, Special Court (SC/ST Cases), Merta vide his judgment and order dated 9.9.1999 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under section 2 of the Act of 1950 in the manner as stated above holding inter alia: 1. That PW 3 Girdhari Singh and PW 4 Hari Ram cannot be regarded as eye-witnesses in the present case. 2. That he relied on two circumstances; (i) that accused-appellant made a confession before the villagers; and (ii) that recovery of knife and skin of the cow has been effected at the instance of the accused-appellant, and thus, he found that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the accused- appellant under section 2 of the Act of 1950. Aggrieved from the said judgment and order dated 9.9.1999 passed by the learned Judge Special Court (SC/ST Cases), Merta, this appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant.;