ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Acquittal Appeal No.S-73 of 2014

Date Order with Signature of Hon’ble Judge

For hearing of main case

27.05.2019

Mr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman Soomro, Advocate for the appellant / complainant

Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J;-. The facts in brief for disposal of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal are that the private respondents allegedly in furtherance of their common intention by committing trespass into the house of appellant / complainant caused lathi and brick blows to her and her son Ubaidullah and then went away after outraging her modesty for that the private respondents were booked and reported upon.

2. At trial, the private respondents did not plead guilty to the charge and prosecution to prove it examined the appellant / complainant and her witnesses and then closed the side.

3. The private respondents in their statements recorded u/s 342 CrPC denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence, they examined none in their defence on oath. However, they produced certain documents to prove their innocence.

4. On conclusion of the trial, the private respondents were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for various terms by learned Ist Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Rohri vide judgment dated 02.04.2014, which they impugned by way of preferring an appeal. It was accepted by learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur vide judgment dated 12.11.2014, consequently, they were acquitted of the offence for which they were charged, tried and convicted by learned trial Magistrate, such acquittal of the private respondents by learned appellate Court is impugned by the appellant / complainant before this Court by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant / complainant that the learned appellate Court has recorded the acquittal of the private respondents without lawful justification on the basis of improper assessment of evidence. By contending so, he sought for adequate action against the private respondents.

6. Learned DPG for the State has sought for the dismissal of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal by contending that the impugned judgment is well reasoned.

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

8. The parties are admittedly disputed with each other. There is general allegation of the incident. The very case on investigation was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C-Class”. In these circumstances, learned appellate Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt.

9. 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”.

10. Nothing has been brought on record, which may suggest that acquittal of the private respondents has been recorded by learned appellate Court in arbitrary or cursory manner which may justify making interference with it by this Court by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.

Judge

Abdul Basit