IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-91 of 2017
Appellant :
Muhammad Sharif son of Imamuddin
In person
State :
Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah, DPG
Date of
hearing : 03-05-2019.
Date of decision : 03-05-2019.
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD
ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant appeal has
impugned judgment dated 17-04-2017, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions
Judge, Sukkur, whereby he has acquitted the private respondents/accused of the
offence for which they were charged.
2. The fact in
brief necessary for disposal of instant Cr. Appeal are that the private
respondents in furtherance of their common intention by using criminal force
fired at appellant/complainant with intention to commit his murder and went
away by insulting him for that they were booked and reported upon.
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 statements
of private respondents/accused were recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C wherein
they denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence, they did not
examine themselves on oath or anyone in their defence, however one amongst them
produced a certified copy of an order in support of his innocence.
5. On
evaluation of evidence, so produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court
acquitted private respondents/accused of the offence for which they were
charged, such acquittal of the private respondents/accused is impugned by the
appellant/complainant before this Court by way of instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal
as stated above.
6. It is
contended by the appellant /complainant that learned trial Court has recorded
acquittal of the private respondents/accused without lawful justification. By
contending so he sought for adequate punishment for the private
respondents/accused.
7. The D.P.G
for the State by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of
instant Cr. Acquittal Appeal.
8. I have
considered the above arguments and perused the record.
9. The FIR of the incident has been
lodged with the delay of about six days, which is not explained plausible by
the appellant/complainant, such delay as such could not be over looked. Indeed
it is reflecting consultation. The firing is in effective one and the parties
are already disputed. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to
record their acquittal of the private respondents/accused by extending them
benefit of doubt, such acquittal is neither appearing to be arbitrary nor
cursory to be interfered with by this Court.
10. In
case of State & ors vs. Abdul Khaliq
& ors (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, the instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is
dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
Nasim/P.A