IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-21 of 2018
Appellant/Complainant : Ali Gohar s/o Ahmed Khan Jalbani
Through Mr.Irfan Badar Abbasi, Advocate
State : Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G
Date of hearing : 17.09.2018
Date of decision : 17.09.2018
JUDGMENT
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 25.04.2018, passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ratodero, whereby the private respondents were acquitted of the offence outcome of FIR/Crime No.127/2017, u/s.324, 337-H(ii), 148, 149 PPC of P.S Ratodero.
2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that; the private respondents with rest of the culprits, allegedly after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, being armed with deadly weapons, fired at complainant Ali Gohar and his witnesses with intention to commit their murder in order to settle their dispute with them over landed property and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the present case was registered.
3. At trial, the private respondents did not plead guilty and prosecution to prove the charge, examined PW-01 appellant/complainant, produced through him FIR of the present case, PW-02 Ansar Ali, PW-03 Piyaral, PW-04 HC Sikandar Ali Mirani, through him were produced roznamcha entries, PW-05 SIO/ASI Abdul Haq, through him were produced memo of place of incident and recovery of empties from the place of incident, memo of arrest of private respondent/accused Ali Nawaz, memo of arrest of private respondent/accused Shah Nawaz alias Bado and roznamcha entries, PW-06 Mashir Abdul Razzaque and then closed the side.
4. The private respondents in their statements recorded u/s.342 Cr.PC denied the prosecution allegations by pleading innocence by stating that they have been involved in this case falsely by the appellant/complainant on account of their dispute with him over the landed property. They did not examine anyone in their defense or themselves on oath in disproof of the prosecution allegation.
5. On evaluation of evidence so produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents of the charge by way of judgment, which the appellant/complainant has impugned before this Court, by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal, as stated above.
6. It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents on the basis of improper appreciation of the evidence. By contending so, he sought for admission of the instant criminal acquittal appeal to its regular hearing for further action against the private respondents.
7. Learned A.P.G supported the impugned judgment.
8. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
9. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of one day; such delay in lodgment of the FIR could not be lost sight of, as it reflects consultation. As per the appellant/complainant and his witnesses they were fired at by the private respondents with intention to commit their murder within very close range yet none of the fire hit to them, which they managed to save under mysterious circumstances, which has made the very allegation of firing on the part of private respondents to be doubtful one. One of the private respondents namely Ali Nawaz as per SIO/ASI Abdul Haq was found to be innocent during course of investigation and was released accordingly. If it was so then the involvement of the innocent persons in a false case by the appellant/complainant could not be lost sight of. The parties admittedly are disputed over landed property. The involvement of the private respondents if is seen in the light of above said dispute then it appears to be doubtful one. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to order for acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt by way of impugned judgment.
10. In case of Faheem Ahmed Farooq vs.The State (2008 SCMR-1572), it is held that;
“single infirmity creating reasonable doubt regarding truth of the charge makes the whole case doubtful.
11. It is settled by now that the acquittal carries with it double presumption of innocence and interference with acquittal is narrow and limited, which could only be interfered with until and unless it is found to have been passed in arbitrary or cursory manner.
12. In case of State and others vs. Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC-554), it is held by the Hon’ble 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”.
13. Nothing has been brought on record which may suggest that the impugned judgment has been passed by learned trial Court in arbitrary or cursory manner, which may call for interference.
14. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant appeal is dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
-