IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. S – 13 of 2019

Appellant/Complainant : Ghulam Qadir Bhatti, in person

The State Syed Sardar Ali Shah, Deputy Prosecutor

General

Date of hearing : 05.04.2019

Date of decision : 05.04.2019

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 04.08.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur, whereby the private respondents have been acquitted of the offence for which they were charged.

2. It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that the private respondents after having formed an unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object by making encroachment over his plot by taking away therefrom construction material and then issued threats of murder to him, for that he lodged report of the incident with the police and on usual investigation the private respondents were challaned 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 appellant/complainant and his witnesses and then closed the side.

4. The private respondents during course of their examination u/s 342, Cr.P.C denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence, they did not examine themselves on oath or anyone in their defence.

5. 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.

6. It is contended by the appellant/complainant that the private respondents have encroached upon his plot without any lawful justification and he was able to prove his case against the private respondents before the trial Court by way of cogent evidence, yet they have been acquitted of the charge by learned trial Court without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for adequate action against the private respondents.

7. Learned DPG for the State has sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal by supporting the impugned judgment.

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

9. Parties admittedly are disputed over possession of the plot, such dispute could only be resolved by civil Court having jurisdiction. Nothing has been brought on record by appellant/complainant which may suggest that the appellant/complainant on having purchased the construction material kept the same over the dispute plot and therefrom, it was allegedly taken away by the private respondents; the FIR of the incident has been lodged with unexplained delay of eight months, such delay could not be lost sight of. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt.

10. 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”.

11. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

Judge

ARBROHI