IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT
SUKKUR
Criminal
Acquittal Appeal No.S- 24 of 2019
Appellant/Complainant : Muhammad Nawaz through
Mr. Attaullah
Bhutto, Advocate
Date of hearing : 15.03.2019
Date of decision
: 15.03.2019
JUDGMENT
IRSHAD ALI
SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant
Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 21.01.2019, passed by
learned IV-Additional Sessions Judge Mirpur Mathelo, 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 as per
appellant/complainant the private respondents on 08.9.2017 demanded ‘Bhatha’ of Rs.200,000/- from him with a threat that, if he
failed to pay the same either he or his son would be abducted and killed. On
12.09.2017, when he was going back to his house through his Car, he was taken
by the private respondents to police station Dad Leghari, there he was locked
up and maltreated and then his custody was shifted to police station Yaroo Lund, there he was kept in lock up and then was asked
to go. He found his Car sustaining damage, its spare wheel missing together
with Rs.50,000/- which were kept in Car. For that he lodged report of the
incident with police station Yaro Lund by way of an
application u/s 22-A and B Cr.P.C. Consequently, the
private respondents were reported up by the police to face trial for the above
said offence.
3. At
trial, the private respondents did not plead guilty to the charge and
prosecution to prove it examined PW-1 SIP Ghulam Ali (Ex.03); PW-2
appellant/complainant (Ex.04), he produced FIR of the present case and then
prosecution closed its side.
4. On
evaluation of the evidence so produced by the prosecution, learned trial Court
acquitted the private respondents of the offence for which they were charged by
way of impugned judgment as stated above.
5. It
is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that learned trial
Court has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without lawful
justification and without taking the evidence of the appellant/complainant into
consideration. By contending so, he sought for admission of the instant Criminal
Acquittal Appeal to its regular hearing for adequate action against the private
respondents.
6. I
have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
7. The
FIR of the incident has been lodged with unexplained delay of seven months, such delay could not be lost sight of. There is no medical
certificate which may suggest that the appellant/complainant was actually
maltreated by the private respondents. Nothing has been brought on record by
the appellant/complainant which may prove his ownership over the Car which
allegedly was damaged by the private respondents. No witness as per SIO/SIP
Ghulam Ali was produced by the appellant/complainant before him to substantiate
his allegation. It was admitted by the appellant/complainant during course of
his examination that his cousin is disputed with private respondent Abdul
Rasheed over landed property and he is witness against him in a criminal case. The
involvement of the private respondents if is examined in the light of such
dispute then, it appears to be doubtful. The very case as per SIO/SIP Ghulam
Ali on investigation was found to be false and was recommended to be cancelled
by him under ‘B’ class. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was
right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit
of doubt.
8. In
case of State and others vs. Abdul
Khaliq and others (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”.
9. In
view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant Criminal Acquittal
Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly in limine.
Judge