G.L. Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.5.81 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur whereby he convicted the appellant under Section 3 of the Preservation of Certain Animals Act. 1950 and sentenced him to six months R.l. and a fine of Rs. 500/-.
(2.) The short facts are that on 18.9.80 Kamji, P.W. 1 lodged a report at Police Station Kherwara stating that on 16.9.80 his son Lalu informed him at his residence that Jaita (accused) had caused the death of his bullock by causing injuries by the reverse side of the axe. On this report, a case under Section 429 IPC was registered. After investigation, a challan was submitted. To a charge under section 2 of the Preservation of Certain Animals Act, and alternative charge under 429 IPC, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Kamji, P.W. 2 Laliya, P.W. 3 Dr. Mohanlal Sharma, P.W. 4 Ratna, P.W. 5 Amra, P.W. 6 Naniya and PW. 7 Keshar Singh. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied accusation. He stated that he was ill and he did not cause injury to any animal. The learned Sessions Judge held that the charge under section 2 of the Preservation of Certain Animals Act was not proved. He, however, found the charge under section 3 of the Act proved against the appellant and hence convicted and sentenced him as above.
(3.) Pointing out the infirmities in the prosecution case, Mr. Gani contends that the trial court has erred in convicting the appellant. According to him, the name of the accused was stated in the F.I.R. simply because the bullock was found lying in his field.;