HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 558 of 2024 Court No. - 93 HON'BLE MRS. VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL, J. 1. This government appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)–I, Bareilly, in Session Trial No. 957 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 289 of 2022, State vs. Zubair and others, under Sections 3/5/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, Police Station Kila, District Bareilly. 2. Heard Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Mohd. Waseem, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that Sub-Inspector Rita Tevatiya, on receiving secret information, reached the spot on 13.09.2022 and allegedly found four persons engaged in cutting and selling of beef. About 75 Kg. Of beef along with two knives, one chopper, weighing instruments and other articles were recovered from their possession. Three accused persons were apprehended on the spot while one of them managed to escape. 4. The trial court, upon appreciation of evidence, recorded the finding of acquittal, inter alia on following grounds :- (i) That as per statement of P.W.-1 Sub Inspector Rita Tevatiya, the house-in-question had only one door, making the alleged escape of one accused doubtful and creating a serious dent in the prosecution case. (ii) The general diary regarding the departure of police personnels from Thana was not produced before the trial court. (iii) The seized articles were not shown to have the signatures of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : A. K. Sand, Ashutosh Kumar Sand Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mohammad Waseem State of U.P. .....Appellant(s) Zubair Quraisee And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the accused persons. (v) No veterinary expert was examined to establish that the recovered meat was, in fact, beef. 5. There is no evidence as to how and where the seized meat was disposed of. No videography of the recovery and destruction proceedings was done, and no site plan of the alleged place of destruction was prepared. No customer was found at the spot purchasing the beef. No independent witness was examined, despite the place being a populated locality and the incident occurrence in day time. 6. Having heard learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for opposite party and perused the record, this Court finds that the trial court has meticulously examined the evidence on record and has assigned cogent and plausible reasons for recording acquittal. 7. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that an order of acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence in favour of accused. Interference by the appellate court is warranted only when the findings of the trial court are perverse, manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. Where two views are possible on the evidence adduced, the one favourable to the accused should be adopted and the appellate court should not lightly interfere with an order of acquittal unless the conclusion drawn by the trial court is unreasonable or perverse. 8. In the present case, the deficiencies noted by the trial court are not minor irregularities but go to the root of prosecution case. The absence of independent witnesses, non-production of G.D. entry, lack of forensic, veterinary confirmation of the alleged beef and doubtful recovery proceedings cumulatively create serious doubt about the prosecution case. The view taken by the trial court is plausible and reasonable based on evidence on record. It cannot be said that the judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity or illegality warranting interference by the appellate court. Accordingly, the appeal filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is liable to be rejected. 9. Taking all the circumstances, as it is, leave as prayed for by the State, is refused. Hence, the appeal filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected at the admission stage. 10. A copy of this judgment along with trial court record, if received, be transmitted to the Court concerned. April 2, 2026 P. Pandey GOVA No. 558 of 2024 2 (Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad