FARID AKHTAR vs YASIR LATIF Benefit of doubt — 2025 YLR 1054 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

FARID AKHTAR VS YASIR LATIF Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of slightest doubt shaking the roots of a case must be extended to accused party. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1054 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case FARID AKHTAR VS YASIR LATIF Ss. 302(b), 459 & 392---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 164---Qatl-i-amd, hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house breaking, robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Confessional statement of accused, recording of---Accused was charged for entering into the house of complainant, and committing murder of the deceased during robbery---Statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C., of the accused-respondent before Judicial Magistrate was doubtful---As per record, accused-respondent was arrested on 07.10.2016---Accused-respondent was in the judicial lock up, while his statement was recorded on 25.10.2016---Statement of the Judicial Magistrate revealed that no application was moved by the accused-respondent for recording his statement through Superintendent Jail---Moreover, the accused-respondent had not accepted his statement allegedly recorded before the Judicial Magistrate---Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case with cogent and convincing evidence against the acquitted accused---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1054 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case FARID AKHTAR VS YASIR LATIF Interference---Scope---Court must be slow in reversing judgment of acquittal, unless the same is found to be arbitrary, fanciful and capricious on the face of it, or the same is the result of bare misreading or non-reading of any material. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1054 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case FARID AKHTAR VS YASIR LATIF Ss. 302(b), 459 & 392---Qatl-i-amd, hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house breaking, robbery---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Recovery doubtful---Accused was charged for entering into the house of complainant, and committing murder of the deceased during robbery---Record reflected that initially the accused / respondent was not nominated by the complainant in the alleged FIR---Later on during investigation, some doubtful persons including respondent were brought under investigation by previous Investigating Officer and he in his statement recorded before the Trial Court, stated that during his investigation no proof of committing offence of murder was found from the accused- respondent---Accused-respon-dent did not tell about the murder of the deceased, due to which, no recovery was made from him---Prosecution witness during cross-examination stated that accused was arrested after 5/6 days of the occurrence---Accused-respondent remained arrested for one week and later on he was released by the police---So, in previous investigation no proof of murder of deceased was found against the accused/respondent---Later on the investigation of the case was made over to DSP on 12.05.2016, and he arrested the accused/respondent on 08.10.2016---Said Investigating Officer recovered weapon of offence i.e. churri/knife from the accused on his indication, and ear rings of deceased from the shop of gold (goldsmith)---Recovered churri was not sent to the laboratory for analysis---Recovery witness stated that accused after cleaning the churri concealed the same in the field outside the house of deceased, and later on he took the Churri and placed it in the shed of kitchen---Allegation of snatching ornaments from the deceased and recovery of the same was also doubtful in light of evidence of the prose-cution--- Circumstances established that prosecution had failed to prove its case with cogent and convincing evidence against the acquitted accused--- Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 1054 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case FARID AKHTAR VS YASIR LATIF Benefit of doubt---Principle---Benefit of a single circumstance creating doubt in the mind of a prudent person is to be given to the accused not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right.

FARID AKHTAR vs YASIR LATIF Benefit of doubt — 2025 YLR 1054 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR