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