Allahabad High Court

u.p.versusZubair Quraisee and 3 others

Decided: 1 April 2026
Bench: VANI RANJAN AGRAWAL

Holding

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's acquittal.

Summary

The State of Uttar Pradesh appealed an acquittal granted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track)‑I, Bareilly, in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The prosecution alleged that four persons were caught cutting and selling beef, with 75 kg of meat and related tools seized, but one accused escaped. The trial court acquitted the accused, citing material gaps: the house had only one door making escape doubtful, the police general diary was not produced, the seized meat lacked the accused’s signatures, no veterinary expert confirmed the meat as beef, and there was no evidence of proper disposal or independent witnesses. The High Court examined these deficiencies and held that they created reasonable doubt, and that appellate interference with an acquittal is permissible only on a perverse or illegal finding. Consequently, the appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed, leaving the acquittal intact.

Issues considered

Whether the prosecution evidence under the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955, was sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Whether procedural lapses such as non‑production of the police general diary, lack of veterinary verification of the meat, and absence of independent witnesses warrant overturning the trial court's acquittal.
Whether the appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 378(3)
Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 — s. 3, 5, 8

Subjects

criminal law
acquittal
appellate review
evidentiary standards
cow slaughter legislation
procedural irregularities
presumption of innocence

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

GOVERNMENT APPEAL No. - 558 of 2024

State of U.P.
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Zubair Quraisee And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : A. K. Sand, Ashutosh Kumar Sand
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mohammad Waseem

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
GOVA No. 558 of 2024
2

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
(Mrs. Vani Ranjan Agrawal,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
PUSHPENDRA PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…