IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Acquittal Appeal No.S- 110 of2017

For hearing of main case.

Mr. Muhammad Aslam Shahani Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, Additional P.G for the State.

Date of hearing: 17-09-2018.

Date of Judgment: 17-09-2018.

J U D G M E N T

AMJAD ALI SAHITO J., Appellant/complainant Muhammad Murad has challenged the impugned judgment dated 18.05.2017, passed by learned 1^st Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Ubauro in criminal case No. 45 of 2015, arising out of crime No. 46 of 2010 registered at P.S, Ubauro for offence under section 506/2 PPC, whereby private respondents/accused were acquitted of the charge.

2. Precise allegation against the respondents/accused is that on 20.05.2013 at unknown time, they came at Bukhari road Ubauro and issued threats of murder to the complainant in presence of witnesses and thereafter they went away. Consequently, FIR was lodged on 22.03.2015.

3. The learned trial court after framing of charge, recording evidence of prosecution witnesses so also respondents/accused and hearing the parties vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondents of the charge.

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 APG 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.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant and learned APG a so also perused the record of case. Admittedly, the incident alleged to have taken place on 20.05.2013, whereas FIR was lodged on 22.03.2015 after considerable delay of about two years, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the appellant/complainant. Besides, parties are on longstanding enmity over the agriculture land, which gives presumption to mediation and false implication of the accused after due deliberation and consultation. Moreover, prosecution has failed to produce any eyewitness of the alleged incident to corroborate the version of the complainant. These were extremely fatal to the prosecution case.

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 respondents of the charge. 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. 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 being meritless is dismissed.

JUDGE