The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court's discretion to uphold an acquittal when the evidence is not conclusive.

JUDGEMENT/ORDER :

M.A. Chowdhary, J.

1. The appellant/State has filed a Criminal Acquittal Appeal against the judgment dated 08.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Doda (for short 'the Trial Court') in case titled "State vs. Akhter Hussain" in File No. 63/Spl. Challan, arising out of FIR No. 109/2006 registered at Police Station, Doda for the commission of offence punishable under Section 8/20 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act').

2. Respondent-Akhter Hussain (hereinafter 'accused') had been charge sheeted for the commission of offence punishable U/S 8/20 NDPS Act vide order dated 09.10.2006 by the Trial Court with the accusation that on 19.07.2006 he had handed over a nylon bag containing 4kg Charas (cannabis) concealed in maize cob sheaths under (karram) vegetables to a simpleton labourer Gani S/o Ramzan and his old servant Bashir Ahmed, who transported the same in an Auto to his house, however, the bag containing the cannabis was seized by the police at Nehru Chowk, Doda and in FSL test, the seized material was found to be Charas. Pleading innocence, the respondent denied the charge and claimed trial.

3. Prosecution in order to prove its case and to bring home the charge against the accused, examined almost all the witnesses cited in the charge sheet.

4. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge urged by the learned counsel for the appellant to find fault with the judgment impugned, a brief reference to the prosecution case, as was put up before the Trial Court, would be worthwhile.

5. A police party from Police Station, Doda comprising of constables Mohd. Iqbal and Basharat deployed on patrolling duty on 19.07.2006 produced one Gani S/o Ramzan Mochi with a nylon bag containing vegetables and a polythene bag containing cannabis wrapped in maize cob sheaths and stated that they had found him at Nehru Chowk and during search of his bag, cannabis was found; that on enquiry, the said Gani disclosed that the vegetables bag had been handed over to him by one Akhter Hussain resident of Dak Mohalla, Doda, to carry it to his home against a labour charges of Rs. 10/-.

6. On receipt of this report, a case was registered vide FIR No. 109/2006 U/S 8/20 NDPS Act at Police Station, Doda. Police after investigation of the case and chemical analysis of the sample of the seized material concluded that accused Akhter Hussain had committed an offence U/S 8/20 NDPS Act and laid the charge sheet, against him. Accused was charge-sheeted by the Trial Court vide order dated 09.06.2006 for the commission of offence punishable U/S 20 r/w Section 8 of the NDPS Act, who pleading innocence, denied the charge and claimed trial.

7. After recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the Trial Court examined the appellant in terms of Section 342 of J&K Cr.P.C. to seek explanation of the incriminating material. Accused pleading false implication examined two defence witnesses and on conclusion of the trial, the matter was considered by the learned Trial Court. Having regard to the evidence on record, it was concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; that the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt and consequently, he was acquitted of the charge vide impugned judgment.

8. It is this judgment which has been assailed by the appellant-State in this appeal inter alia on the grounds that the judgment impugned is against the facts and law; that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence adduced at the time of trial in right perspective; and that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced at the time of trial, the prosecution has proved the charge of the commission of offence against the accused.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record meticulously, we are of the view that having regard to the nature of evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution, the Trial Court had no option, but to dism