IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-65 of 2017

Present

Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah

Appellant/Complainant  :           Rahib son of Pir Bux Mazari,

Through Mr.Faiz Muhammad Larik, 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 31.10.2016, of learned 2^nd Civil Judge & J.M, Kashmore, whereby he has acquitted the private respondents of the charge. 

2.                    The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant acquittal appeal are that; the private respondents with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused lathi blows to PW Muhammad Ameen and then went away by causing kicks and fists blows to the appellant and others, for that they were booked and challaned in the present case.

3.                    At trial, the private respondents denied the charge and prosecution to prove it examined appellant, PW/injured Muhammad Ameen, PW/Mashir Punhal, PW Dr.Manzoor Ahmed, produced through him medical certificate in respect of injuries sustained by injured, PW/HC Hidyatullah, produced through him mashirnama of injury and FIR of the present case, PW SIO/SIP Khan Muhammad, produced through him mashirnama of place of incident and then closed the side.

4.                    The statements under section 342 Cr.PC of the private respondents were recorded and thereafter they were acquitted of the charge by learned trial Court after due hearing to all the concerned by way of judgment dated 31.10.2016, which the appellant has impugned before  this Court by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal.

5.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without justification. By contending so, he sought for admission of the instant acquittal appeal to its regular hearing.

6.                    Learned A.P.G has supported the impugned judgment.

7.                    I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

8.                    The FIR of the incident has been lodged by the appellant with delay of about two days; such delay could not be lost sight of, it has not been explained properly. As per mashirnama, PW Muhammad Ameen was found sustaining single injury. On medical examination, he was found sustaining two injuries. From where the second injury to the said injured has come? No plausible explanation to it is offered by the prosecution. As per PW/injured Muhammad Ameen he remained in hospital as indoor patient for about two days. Medical Officer Dr.Manzoor Ahmed belied PW/injured Muhammad Ameen in that respect by stating that he did not remain in hospital as indoor patient but was treated as O.P.D patient.       As per complainant in his FIR, he and his other witnesses were also caused kicks and fist blows by the private respondents. There is nothing on record which may prove that the complainant or his other witnesses were actually caused any kick or fist blow. Admittedly, there is disputed between the appellant and private respondents over landed property. If it is so, then involvement of the private respondents in the instant case on account of such dispute could not be lost sight of. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to acquit the private respondents of the charge 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.

9.                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.

10.                  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.

11.                  In view of above, the instant criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine.

                                                                                                J U D G E