IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 173 of 2017

Appellant/Complainant : Ali Raza Kalhoro through

Mr. Muhammad Asim Malik, Advocate

Respondents : Aftab and Shafi Muhammad, through

Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Kazi,

Advocate

The State, through Syed Sardar Ali Shah

Deputy Prosecution General

Date of hearing : 25.03.2019

Date of decision : 25.03.2019

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal as per appellant/complainant are that the private respondents with rest of the culprits after having formed an unlawful and in prosecution of their common object by using criminal force by causing him fists and kicks blows struck his head with wall and then went away after abusing him, he reported the incident to police and on due investigation the private respondents with co-accused Naveed, Sajad, Ajeeb and Sajid were challaned by the police to face trial for the above said offence.

2. On due trial, co-accused Naveed, Sajad, Ajeeb and Sajid were acquitted by learned trial Magistrate while the private respondents were convicted for various terms, such conviction they impugned by way of filing an Criminal Appeal, it was accepted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pano Akil consequently they too were acquitted of the offence for which they were charged.

3. The appellant/complainant being aggrieved of the acquittal of the private respondents by the learned appellate Court has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal.

4. It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that the learned appellate Court has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without lawful justification on the basis of improper appraisal of evidence. By contending so, he sought for adequate action against the private respondents.

5. Learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents by supporting the impugned judgment have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by contending that the acquittal of co-accused Naveed, Sajad, Ajeeb and Sajid has already attained finality upto the stage of this Court.

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

7. The FIR of the incident was lodged with delay of about eighteen days, such delay could not be lost sight of. The parties as per FIR are already disputed over landed property. The complainant/appellant during course of his examination before learned trial Court was declared to be hostile to the prosecution. Co-accused Naveed, Sajjad, Ajeeb and Sajid with utmost similar role have already been acquitted by learned trial Court and their acquittal has been maintained even by this Court. In that situation, learned appellate Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending benefit of doubt to them.

8. 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”.

9. 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