Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J. - (1.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Sec. 3378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23rd November, 1987 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur in Sessions Case No. 93/87, whereby, the accused - respondents had been acquitted for the offence under Sec. 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that one Mohan Singh lodged a report at Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur on 9th February, 1987. It is stated in the report that as usual, in the morning the informant had taken his cow for grazing towards hotel Saras. It is also stated that at that time, informant was following the cow at distance and in the meanwhile she turned towards the fields of Maharaj Singh Subedar. It is further stated in the report that the accused had fired a gun and killed the cow.
(2.) On the said report, the police registered a case for the offence under Sec. 2 of the Rajasthan Preservation of Certain Animals Act, 1950. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and on conclusion of the same, challan was filed by the police against the accused - respondents for the offence indicated above. During the course of trial the prosecution had produced 5 witnesses in support of their case. Thereafter, the accused - respondents was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein, they denied the charges and had stated that the prosecution has leveled false allegations against them, on account of enmity. On the conclusion of the trial the learned Sessions Court, having found that the prosecution has failed to prove his case for the offence referred to above acquitted the accused respondents vide his judgment dated 23rd November, 1987.
(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor has tried to assail the judgment impugned, on the ground that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence produced on record by the prosecution. He has also stated that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt but even then the learned court below has passed the order of acquittal which is wholly erroneous. He has also submitted that even though the names of witnesses were not mentioned in the report sooner thereafter, the investigation agency had recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses wherein, the details about the persons and the witnesses was very much disclosed. In the last learned public prosecutor has stated that the learned court below has erred in not relying upon the statements of Dr. Kali Charan.;