IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-35 of 2019

Appellant : Muhammad Sharif son of Imamuddin

In person

State : Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah, DPG

Date of hearing : 20-05-2019.

Date of decision : 20-05-2019.

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant appeal has impugned judgment dated 29-01-2019, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, whereby the private respondents/accused have been acquitted of the offence for which they were charged.

2. As per appellant/complainant the private respondents after having formed unlawful assembly in prosecution of their common object fired at him with intention to commit his murder and then went away by causing butt blows to his son Ali Sher and insulting him and his witnesses for that the present case was registered.

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.

5. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted private respondents/accused of the offence for which they were charged, such acquittal of the private respondents/accused has been 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 on the basis of improper assessment of evidence. By contending so he sought for adequate punishment for the private respondents.

7. The D.P.G for the State by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of instant Cr. Acquittal Appeal by contending that there is dispute between the parties over the possession of plot.

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

9. The firing made at the appellant/complainant with intention to commit his murder proved to be in effective one, which is also belied by the fact that no empty was secured from the place of incident. The parties are already disputed over possession of plot, injuries sustained by PW Ali Sher as per medical officer could have been caused on account of fall on the ground. Under these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record their acquittal of the private respondents 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 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”.

11. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE

Nasim/P.A