ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Acquittal Appeal No.S-37 of 2013
Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge
For hearing of main case
08.04.2019
Mr. Shahid
Hussain Gopang, advocate
for the Appellant
Mr.
Abdul Rehman Kolachi, DPG
for the State
>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<
Irshad Ali Shah, J;-. The appellant/complainant
by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 13-04-2013
passed by learned 1st Civil Judge and J.M Mirwah,
whereby the private respondent has been acquitted of the offence for which he
was charged.
2. It is alleged by the
appellant/complainant that the private respondent with rest of the culprits in
furtherance of their common intention caused lathi
blows to her and husband Ghous Bux
and then went away by insulting and threatening them of murder for that the
present case was registered. On investigation co-accused Makoro,
Pervaiz and Mujahid were
let off by the police while private respondent alone was challaned
to face trial for the aforesaid offence.
3. At trial, the private
respondent did not plead guilty to the charge and prosecution to prove it
examined the appellant/complainant and her witnesses and then closed the side.
4. The private respondent during
course of his examination u/s 342 CrPC denied the
prosecution allegation by pleading innocence by stating that he has been
involved in this case by the complainant. He did not examine himself on oath or
anyone in his defense.
5. It is contended by learned
counsel for the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has recorded
the acquittal of the private respondent without lawful justification on the
basis of improper assessment of evidence. By contending so, he sought for adequate
action against the private respondents.
6. Learned
DPG for the State has sought for the dismissal of instant Criminal Acquittal
Appeal by contending that the impugned judgment is well reasoned.
7.
I have considered the
above arguments and perused the record.
8. The
FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than one month, such delay could not be over looked. The parties are
already disputed over theft of goats. Co-accused Makoro,
Pervaiz and Mujahid as per
SIO ASI Sikander Ali on investigation found to be
innocent and were let off accordingly, which prima-facie indicates that the
appellant/complainant involved innocent persons in commission of incident. In
these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of
private respondent by extending him benefit of doubt.
9. 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”.
10. Nothing
has been brought on record, which may suggest that acquittal of the private
respondent has been recorded by learned trial Court in arbitrary or cursory
manner which may justify making interference with it by this Court by way of instant
Criminal Acquittal Appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.
Judge
ARBROHI