IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

                                 Crl. Acquittal Appeal No. S- 108 of 2016

           

 

                                                Present:

                                                            Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

                                               

Appellant:                 Muhammad Ismail son of Muhammad Hassan by cast Chandio

 

Respondents             1) Abdul Rasheed son of Muhammad Hassan

2) Muhammad Siddiq son of Muhammad Hassan

3) Kaloo son of Muhammad Ibrahim Chandio

4) The State through Abdul Rehman Kolachi, DPG.

     Private respondents present in person.

 

 

Date of hearing:      07-09-2018

Date of Judgment:  07-09-2018

 

 

                                                J U D G M E N T

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J., Appellant/complainant Muhammad Ismail  has challenged the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2016, passed by learned 2nd Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Kotdiji, whereby private respondents/accused were acquitted of the charge.

2.         The facts of the prosecution case are that on 06.06.2013, complainant along with his son went on their land, it was about 1200 hours, private respondents namely Abdul Rehman armed with TT pistol, Muhammad Siddique armed with gun, Kaloo armed with pistol, came on the land of complainant and on arrival, started de-rooting the trees. On the cries of complainant party and on the voice of firing, Muhammad Hassan along with other co-villagers came there. On seeing them all the accused went to their houses by issuing murderous threats. Thereafter complainant appeared at police station and lodged FIR on 23.06.2013 at 0900 hours. 

3.         The learned trial court after framing of charge, recording evidence of prosecution witnesses and hearing the parties vide impugned judgment acquitted the private respondents named above.

4.         Learned counsel appearing for appellant/complainant argued that there was sufficient evidence connecting the private respondents with the commission of offence, but the learned trial court illegally acquitted them of the charge; that respondents failed to create any dent in the prosecution case but even then the trial court illegally, unlawfully and without any justifiable reason acquitted them of the charge and while acquitting the respondents, the trial court failed to record any cogent reason.

5.         On the other hand, learned DPG supported the impugned judgment and argued that sufficient material was available on record creating reasonable shadow of doubt and by giving them such benefit, respondents have been rightly acquitted by the trial court. Private respondent present in person also supported the impugned judgment.

6.         I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant, learned DPG as well as above named private respondent/accused in person so also perused the record of case. Admittedly, the there are glaring contradictions in the depositions of complainant and eye witness Muhammad Ali, which has been discussed by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment, such as complainant in his chief examination has stated that accused Muhammad Siddiqu was armed with gun, whereas the Muhammad Ali who was eye witness of the incident has stated taht accused Muhammad Siddiq was armed with pistol. Complainant during his cross examination has stated that IO came at the place of incident on Mehran car, while the IO Abdul Rasheed Shar in his statement has stated he went to inspect the place of incident o Alto car. Furthermore, PW Muhammad Ali during his cross examination admitted that there is landed dispute between complainant and his mother.

7.         The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the respondents, as such the trial Court had no option, but to acquit the private respondents named above. The trial court after proper appraisal of material available on record and attending all the legal as well as factual aspects of the case passed a very exhaustive and well-reasoned judgment. There appears no illegality or irregularity, misreading and non-reading in the judgment impugned warranting interference by this court.

 

8.         It is also well-settled principle of law that there should not be series of dents and doubts in the prosecution case, but if a single doubt is created even then the defence is entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. It is also established law that after gaining acquittal a double presumption of innocence was earned by the private respondents and the superior courts have always been reluctant to set aside findings of acquittal unless it is proved that the findings arrived at by the trial court while acquitting the accused are based on misreading, non-reading of evidence or the acquittal is perverse, shocking, artificial and ridiculous. Since the instant acquittal appeal was not admitted for regular hearing and the appellant/complainant failed to disclose the misreading and non-reading of evidence, hence he failed to make out the case for regular hearing.

 

9.         For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, thus the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents of the charge. No case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out, therefore, the instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal No. S-108 of 2016 being meritless is dismissed.

           

                                                                                                                  JUDGE

 

 

 

 

Sajjad