IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 91 of 2018

Appellant/Complainant : Shahbaz Mazhar Sahito, through

Mr. Rana Hafiz Tanveer Ahmed, Advocate

Date of hearing : 04.3.2019

Date of decision : 04.3.2019

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 28.05.2018, passed by learned IInd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Bhiria, 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 assembly and in prosecution of their common object by using criminal force threatened appellant/complainant of murder, 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 appellant/complainant and his witnesses and then closed the side.

4. The private respondents during the course of their examination u/s 342 Cr.P.C denied the prosecutions’ allegation by pleading innocence, neither they examined themselves on oath nor anyone in their defence.

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 private respondents in prosecution of their common object have committed the offence of criminal intimidation by threatening the appellant/complainant of murder and such allegation, the prosecution has been able to prove against the private respondents beyond shadow of doubt by producing cogent evidence, which has not been considered by learned trial Court in its true prospect and that too without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for admission of the instant criminal acquittal appeal to its regular hearing for adequate action against the private respondents.

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

8. The FIR of the incident has been lodged after due consultation with one Khalil Ahmed, which appears to be significant. There is general allegation of the incident and as per appellant/complainant; there is dispute between him and the private respondents over plot, and such dispute apparently has made the involvement of the private respondents in this case to be doubtful one. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents of the charge by extending them benefit of doubt.

9. 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”.

10. 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 in limine.

Judge

ARBROHI