IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 95 of 2018

Appellant/Complainant : Nabi Dino Shambani through

Mr. Bahawal-u-Din Shaikh, Advocate

Respondent : The State, through Syed Sardar Ali Shah

Deputy Prosecution General

Date of hearing : 25.01.2019

Date of decision : 25.01.2019

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 29.05.2018, passed by learned IInd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Rohri, whereby the private respondents have been acquitted of the offence, for which they were charged.

2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the private respondents after having formed an unlawful and in prosecution of their common object by using criminal force caused lathi blow to PW Mast Ali and then went away by issued threats of murder to complainant party for that they were booked and reported upon by the police before Court of law for their trial in accordance with law.

3. At trial, the private respondents did not plead guilty to charge and the prosecution to prove it, examined complainant Nabi Dino and his witnesses and then closed the side.

4. The private respondents during the course of their examination u/s 342 Cr.PC denied the prosecutions’ allegation by pleading innocence by stating that they have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party due to matrimonial dispute with them. They did not examine any one in their defence or themselves on oath.

5. On evaluation of evidence so produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents of the offence for which they were charged by way of impugned judgment, as stated above.

6. It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the private respondents beyond shadow of doubt by producing cogent evidence which has not been considered by learned trial Court without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for adequate action against the private respondents.

7. Learned D.P.G for the State by supporting the impugned judgment sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

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

9. The FIR of the incident was lodged with delay of about four days without any plausible explanation, such delay could not be lost sight of as it is reflecting consultation. As per complainant Nabi Dino and PW Mast Ali was caused single blow with lathi. PW Mast Ali on examination was found sustained two lathi blows. Lathi blow sustained by PW Mast Ali is attributed to respondent Fateh Muhammad, he as per complainant is a disabled person. The injuries sustained by PW Mast Ali as per medical officer Dr. Pervez Akhtar were found to be minor (Shujjah-e-Khafifah) in nature. The parties admittedly are disputed over matrimonial affairs and landed property. In that situation, the involvement of the private respondents in this case by the complainant party to satisfy their above said dispute could not be lost sight of. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record the acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt.

10. In case of State & ors vs. Abdul Khaliq & ors (PLD 2011 SC-554), it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that;

“The scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is most narrow and limited, because in an acquittal the presumption of innocence is significantly added to the cardinal rule of criminal jurisprudence, that an accused shall be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty; in other words, the presumption of innocence is doubled. The courts shall be very slow in interfering with such an acquittal judgment, unless it is shown to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law, suffering from the errors of grave misreading or non-reading of the evidence; such judgments should not be lightly interfered and heavy burden lies on the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence which the accused has earned and attained on account of his acquittal. Interference in a judgment of acquittal is rare and the prosecution must show that there are glaring errors of law and fact committed by the Court in arriving at the decision, which would result into grave miscarriage of justice; the acquittal judgment is perfunctory or wholly artificial or a shocking conclusion has been drawn. Judgment of acquittal should not be interjected until the findings are perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous. The Court of appeal should not interfere simply for the reason that on the reappraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could possibly be arrived at, the factual conclusions should not be upset, except when palpably perverse, suffering from serious and material factual infirmities”.

11. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, it could be concluded safely that the impugned judgment is not calling for any interference by this Court by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.

Judge

ARBROHI