IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-28 of 2018
Present
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
Appellant/Complainant : Bashir Ahmed son of Shah Muhammad
Jhatial through Ms.Faryal Brohi, Advocate
State : Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G
Date of hearing : 02.07.2018
Date of decision : 02.07.2018
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH. J- The appellant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 30.04.2018, of learned Civil Judge & J.M, Nasirabad, whereby he has acquitted the private respondents of the charge.
2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant appeal are that; the private respondents allegedly by committing trespass into the house of complainant Bashir Ahmed by night, attempted to commit theft of his buffaloes, for that they were booked and challaned in the present case.
3. At trial, the private respondents did not plead guilty to the charge and prosecution to prove it, examined PW-01 appellant, produced through him FIR of the present case, PW-02 Ghulam Ali, PW-03 Gada Hussain, PW-04 mashir Sajjad Hussain, produced through him mashirnama of place of incident, PW-05 SIO/SIP Qasir Ali and then closed the side.
4. The private respondents in their statements recorded u/s.342 Cr.PC denied the prosecutions allegation by pleading their innocence; they did not examine themselves on oath or any one in their defense.
5. On evaluation of evidence so produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents of the charge by way of judgment dated 30.04.2018, which the appellant has impugned before this Court, by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal.
6. It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant that the learned trial Court has acquitted the private respondents without proper appreciation of the evidence. By contending so, she sought for admission of the instant criminal acquittal appeal to its regular hearing.
7. Learned A.P.G has supported the impugned judgment.
8. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
9. The FIR of the incident has been lodged by the appellant with delay of one day; such delay could not be lost sight of as it is not explained properly. As per appellant, he lodged the FIR of incident after due consultation with nekmards of his community. The FIR which is lodged after due consultation with nekmards could hardly be relied upon in case like the present one. The identity of the private respondents as per FIR was based under the light of bulb, which is appearing to be a weak piece of evidence. Even otherwise, there is no disclosure of the bulb in mashirnama of place of incident. Nothing was taken away by the private respondents during course of alleged incident. As per appellant, it is the second FIR by him against the private respondents. If it is so, then the appellant is having a personal grudge against the private respondents to involve them in criminal cases one after other. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt by way of impugned judgment, which is not appearing to be arbitrary. It is not calling for any interference by this Court by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal.
10. In case of State vs. Rasheed Ahmed (NLR 2004 Cr. 286), it was held that the judgment of acquittal which is neither arbitrary nor has caused miscarriage of justice would not warrant interference by the High Court.
11. In case of Muhammad Tassawur vs. Hafiz Zulqarnain and others (PLD 2009 SC-53), it was held that when an accused person who is acquitted of the charge by the Court of competent jurisdiction carries with him presumption of double innocence.
12. In view of above, the instant criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine.
J U D G E
.