IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 213 of 2017

Appellant/Complainant : Budho Khan Rind in person

Respondents : Ajmal Khan and Muhammad Sharif

Present in person

The State through Syed Sardar Ali Shah, Deputy Prosecutor General

Date of hearing : 22.04.2019

Date of decision : 22.04.2019

JUDGMENT

Irshad Ali Shah, J;-. The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 30.11.2017 passed by learned 1^st Civil Judge and J.M Ubauro, 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 in furtherance of their common intention forged an agreement to sell in respect of his landed property and then threatened him to be killed if he failed to vacate such land, for that he lodged report with the police. Consequently 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 the appellant/complainant and his witnesses and then closed the side.

4. The private respondents during course of their examination u/s 342 CrPC denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence by stating that they have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant. They did not examine themselves on oath or anyone in their defense.

5. It is contended by the appellant/complainant in person that the private respondents in order to deprive him of landed property forged an agreement to sell and then issued him threats of murder and such allegation he has been able to prove by way of cogent evidence which has not been considered by learned trial Court. By contending so, he sought for adequate action against the private respondents.

6. Learned DPG for the State and private respondents in person have sought for the dismissal of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal by contending that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and the offence relating to document subject to provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C could only be proceeded on direct complaint.

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 two years and same even otherwise as per SIO/SIP Anwer Ali Kalwar was found to be false and recommended to be disposed of under ‘B’ class; parties are already disputed over landed property. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them 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 respondents have 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