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