IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-138 of 2018

Appellant/Complainant : Mairaj Muhammad Mahar in person.

Respondent : The State, through Syed Sardar Ali Shah

Deputy Prosecution General

Date of hearing : 06-05-2019.

Date of decision : 06-05-2019

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal as per appellant/complainant are that the appellant/complainant lodged an FIR with PS Piryaloi with allegation that the private respondent was insisting upon his sister Mst. Sabra to have illicit relation with him and on being prevented from doing so has threatened the appellant/complainant of murder, for that the private respondent was reported upon by the police. On trial he was convicted by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Kingri. On appeal, he was acquitted by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur. Such acquittal of the private respondent is impugned by the appellant/complainant before this Court by way of instant Cr. Acquittal Appeal.

2. It is contended by the appellant/complainant that learned appellate Court has acquitted the private respondent without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for adequate action against the private respondent.

3. Learned D.P.G for the State has sought for dismissal of instant Cr. Acquittal Appeal by supporting the judgment of learned appellate Court.

4. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

5. The FIR of the incident has lodged with delay of more than one month, such delay could not be lost sight of. On investigation the private respondent was found to be innocent and his name was placed in column No. 2 of the challan sheet. PW Fayyaz Ahmed was given up by the prosecution, when he was not found to be supporting the case of prosecution. PW Mst. Sabra during course of her examination was fair enough to admit that the message sent to her did not contain the name of private respondent. In that situation, learned appellate Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondent by extending benefit of doubt to him.

8. 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”.

9. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Cr. Acquittal Appeal fails. It is dismissed accordingly.

Judge

Nasim/P.A