Srinagar Court acquits accused in cheating case

By Arif Rashid
Comments 0
05 Apr 2026

Srinagar, Apr 4: A Srinagar court has acquitted an accused in a cheating case registered more than a decade ago, citing failure of the prosecution to establish the essential ingredients of the offence.

The judgment was delivered on April 2, 2026, by the Court of the 3rd Additional Munsiff/Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMIC) Srinagar in connection with FIR No. 29/2013 of Police Station Karanagar, registered under Section 420 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

The court, presided over by Varun Kumar, acquitted the accused after finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

During the trial, defence counsel Advocates Shahid Rashid and Qazi Mohammad Athar argued that there were significant gaps in the prosecution’s case and a lack of evidence to establish key elements required to constitute the offence of cheating. They contended that the prosecution failed to demonstrate any dishonest intention, deception, or fraudulent inducement on the part of the accused.

The defence further submitted that the accused had no role in the testing process in question and had merely received the sample in the routine course of work, without any involvement in conducting tests or issuing reports.

It was also argued that the prosecution failed to produce crucial witnesses and could not establish any wrongful gain or loss attributable to the accused. The defence argued that mere deterioration of a medical sample does not constitute cheating in the absence of mens rea at the inception of the transaction.

Accepting these submissions, the court observed that the prosecution had “miserably failed” to prove its case. It reiterated that suspicion cannot substitute proof and extended the benefit of doubt to the accused, leading to his acquittal. The court also ordered the discharge of bail and surety bonds.

The proceedings against a co-accused in the case had earlier abated following his demise during the trial. The defence described the judgment as a reaffirmation of the established legal principle that criminal liability for cheating cannot be presumed without clear evidence of fraudulent intent.