State vs Zahoor Ahmed Ss — 2025 YLR 2706 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.

State VS Zahoor Ahmed Ss. 3, 4 & 26---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 249-A---Manufacturing, owning, possessing or trafficking intoxicant---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Application of accused seeking his acquittal pursuant to S. 249-A, Cr.P.C, was allowed by the Trial Court---Prosecution case was that the accused-respondent sold liquor to the co-accused---After investigation, police submitted challan before the trial Court---During pendency of the trial the co-accused, respondent was proceeded under S.512, Cr.P.C, who appeared before the Court later and filed an application under S.249-A Cr.P.C for his acquittal---Said application was accepted by the Trial Court and it acquitted the accused---Validity---In the present case, it was admitted by the recovery witness during Court statement that accused-respondent did not sell liquor to the co-accused in his presence---Delivery of parcel for chemical examination with an ordinate delay also made the custody of recovered parcel as doubtful---Prosecution also failed to produce any convincing evidence to establish that liquor allegedly recovered from co-accused was sold by the accused-respondents---Moreso, the co-accused on whose statement the accused-respondent was involved in the case had already been acquitted of the charges---Impugned judgment was based on proper appreciation of evidence and was supported by reasons---In the case in hand, there were many elements which created reasonable doubt in the prosecution story, thus, no perversity, arbitrariness, artificialness, or speculation was found in the impugned judgment, which was necessary for recalling an acquittal order---Appeal was dismissed, accordingly. Citation Name: 2025 YLR 2706 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case State VS Zahoor Ahmed Double presumption of innocence---Scope---Interference by appellate Court in acquittal order is comparatively narrow and limited because in case of acquittal the presumption of innocence is significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence that an accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty---In other words, the presumption of innocence is doubled---Courts are normally reluctant to interfere in such an acquittal order, unless it is shown to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law, suffering from the errors of grave misreading or non-reading of the evidence.

State vs Zahoor Ahmed Ss — 2025 YLR 2706 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR