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