2025 PLP 2706 (YLR)

Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, J.

Foreword The captioned appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 03.07.2021 passed by learned Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Patikka/ Naseerabad District Muzaffarabad, whereby, accused/respondent has been acquitted of the charges under section 249-A Cr.P.C. Precise facts forming background of the instant appeal are, FIR No.44/2013 was registered at Police Station Kahori Tehsil Patikka/ Naseerabad District Muzaffarabad in offences under sections 3/4 and 26 AM on 09.06.2013 on the complaint of the State through Babar Yaqoob, SHO Police Station Kahori. The allegation against the accused-respondent was that he sold liquor to the co-accused Maqsood Ahmed Abbasi. After investigation, police submitted challan before trial Court on 30.10.2013. During pendency of the trial the co-accused, appellant herein was proceeded under section 512 Cr.P.C. who appeared before the Court on 05.06.2021. On 14.06.2021 he filed an application under section 249-A Cr.P.C. for his acquittal. After hearing arguments the court below accepted the application and acquitted the accused/respondent from the alleged offences vide its impugned judgment dated 03.07.2021, hence the captioned acquittal appeal. STANCE OF THE APPELLANT: The learned AAG vehemently argued that allegation against the accused was proved but the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and wrongly acquitted him of the charges through the impugned judgment which is not sustainable. REFUTATION OF THE RESPONDENT: The learned counsel for the accused-respondent defended the impugned judgment by submitted that prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of his client to the hilt and prosecutions story is full of major dints which go to the roots of case, thus Court below has accurately acquitted accused-respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record of the case with utmost care and caution. COURT OBSERVATIONS AND RELEVANT LAW: At the very outset it may be stated that this is an appeal against an acquittal order recorded by the Court below and the scope of 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. The Courts are normally reluctant to interfere 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, such judgments should not be lightly interfered and heavy burden lies on the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence which accused has earned and attained on account of his acquittal. It has been categorically held in plethora of judgments that interference in a judgment of acquittal is a rare phenomena and prosecution must establish that glaring errors of law and fact committed by the Court in arriving at the decision, which would result into grave miscarriage of justice; the acquittal judgment is perfunctory or wholly artificial or a shocking conclusion has been drawn. Moreover, in number of dictums of this Court, it has been categorically laid down that such judgment should not be interjected until the findings are perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous. The Court of appeal should not interfere simply for the reason that on the re-appraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could possibly be arrived at, the factual conclusions should not be upset, except when palpably perverse, suffering from serious and material factual infirmities. In the instant case, the learned AAG was confronted to refer the evidence which has not been considered by the Court below while passing the impugned judgment in order to prove the guilt of the accused/respondent produced by the prosecution, he frankly conceded that there is no such evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused. After going through the impugned judgment I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment is liable to be maintained because it is admitted by the recovery witness during court statement that accused respondent did not sell liquor to the co accused in his presence. The delivery of parcel for chemical examination with an ordinate delay also makes the custody of recovered parcel as doubtful. The 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 has already been acquitted of the charges. The impugned judgment is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is supported by reasons, hence defensible. In the case in hand, there are many elements which create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story, thus, I do not find any perversity, arbitrariness, foolishness, artificialness, speculation or rediculation in the impugned judgment which is necessary for recalling an acquittal order, hence the appeal entails dismissal. My this view finds support from the following case law:- 1. 2020 SCR 367; 2. 2017 PCr.LJ 185 3. 2014 SCR 442; and 4. 2014 SCR

770. DISPOSAL: The sum and substance of the above discussion is, finding no essence the instant appeal is hereby dropped. JK/49/AJK(H.C) Appeal dismissed.