IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

         Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-31 of 2018

 

 

Appellant/Complainant  :           Mehboob Ali s/o Gul Hassan Manganhar,

Through Mr.Mumtaz Ali Brohi, Advocate

 

State                                      :           Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G

 

Date of hearing                  :           06.07.2018             

Date of decision                :           06.07.2018                         

 

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 15.05.2018, of learned 1st Judicial Magistrate, Shahdadkot, 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 after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused lathi blows to complainant Mehboob Ali in order to satisfy their dispute with him over landed property, for that the appellant/complainant lodged FIR of the above said incident with police after seeking necessary direction from Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Shahdadkot.

3.                    At trial, the private respondents denied the charge and prosecution to prove it, examined PW-01 appellant/complainant Mehboob Ali, produced through him FIR of the present case. PW-02 Manthar Ali. PW-03 SIO/ASI Shahid Ahmed, produced through him mashirnama of injuries, “roznamcha” entry, mashirnama of place of incident, mashirnama of arrest of accused Shabir alias Ghulam Fareed. PW-04 Nadar Ali. PW-05 HC Abdul Sattar Brohi, through him was produced order of Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Shahdadkot directing the police to record FIR of the appellant/complainant. PW-06 Dr.Muhammad Idrees, produced through him provisional and final medical certificate in respect of injuries sustained by the appellant/complainant and then closed the side.

4.                    The private respondents in their statements recorded under section 342 Cr.PC denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence, they did not examine themselves on oath. They examined DWs Atta Muhammad and Abdul Hameed in their defence and then closed the side.

5.                    It was stated by DWs Atta Muhammad and Abdul Hameed that respondeds/accused Mst.Naheed Khuhawar, Hidayatullah and Rahim Bux were with them at the time of incident. By stating so, they impliedly stated that the above said respondents/accused were involved in this case falsely by the appellant/complainant.  

6.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Magistrate has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without proper appreciation of evidence. By contending so, he sought for admission of the instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal to its regular hearing.

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

8.                    As per appellant/complainant in his FIR, after receipt of injuries he straight away went at Shahdadkot Hospital, then by way of an application under section 22-A & B Cr.PC, he sought directions from learned Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Shahdadkot, and then lodged FIR of the incident with police. All this was done with delay of 41 days, such delay being unexplained could not be lost sight of. The appellant/complainant has not disclosed the circumstances which prevented him from reporting the incident to the police in first instance, which appears to be significant. The appellant/complainant admittedly is having dispute with the private respondents over landed property and such dispute apparently is appearing to be a reason with the appellant/complainant to involve the private respondents to the maximum extent of number including woman. PW Manthar being brother was having reason to support the appellant/complainant. PW Muhammad Ramzan being first mashir almost to all the mashirnamas was not examined by the prosecution for no obvious reason. His non-examination without any justification prima facie indicates that he was not going to support the case of prosecution. The respondents/accused Mst.Naheed, Hidahyatullah and Rahim alias Rahim Bux too were let-off by the police during course of investigation finding to be innocent. In these circumstances, the learned trial Magistrate was right to record acquittal of 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.                  Above are the reasons for short order dated 06.07.2018, whereby the instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal was dismissed in limine.

 

                                                                                                J U D G E

-