IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 09 of 2004

Appellant/complainant: None present

Private respondents : None present

The State, through Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, Deputy Prosecution General

Date of hearing : 26.04.2019

Date of decision : 26.04.2019

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 30.04.2004 passed by learned 3^rd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Naushahro Feroze, whereby he has acquitted the privates respondents of the offence for which they were charged.

2. It is alleged that the private respondents after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object caused kicks, fists and soti blows to appellant/complainant and Mst. Zulekhan and then went away by insulting them, for that they were booked and reported upon by the police.

3. At the 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 in their statements recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution allegation by pleading their innocence by stating that they have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to satisfy their dispute with them over landed property, they examined themselves on oath and their witnesses Muhammad Umar, Mujahid Ali, Naveed Ahmed, Muhammad Amin and Ghulam Rasool in their defence and then closed the side.

5. The instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is pending on the file of this Court since 2004, it is abandoned by the appellant/complainant without any lawful justification, same could not be kept pending on the file of this Court for indefinite period, therefore, it is being dispose of on merits with the help of learned DPG for the State.

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

7. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of seven days, such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be lost sight of; no injury to any of the injured is attributed to any of the private respondents specifically; and parties were found to be disputed even prior to the incident. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt.

8. 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”.

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