IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-20 of 2016

Appellant/Complainant :      Mukhtiar Ali s/o Rasool Bux Landar

Through Mr.Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate

State                               :       Mr.Sharafuddin Kanhar, A.P.G 

Date of hearing               :       26.09.2018          

Date of decision              :       26.09.2018                   

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 12.03.2016, passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, K.N.Shah, in case outcome of FIR Crime No.20/2014, u/s.324, 147, 148, 149, 114, 504, 337-A(i), A(iii), F(i), (ii), & L(ii) PPC, whereby the private respondents were acquitted of the offence for which they were charged. 

2.                The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that; the private respondents after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by using criminal force, fired at complainant Mukhtiar Ali and PW Ali Raza, with intention to commit their murder and then went away by causing lathies, butt and hatchet blows with its backside to the said complainant and PWs Akhtiar Ali, Ali Raza and Rab Dino, for that the present case was registered.

3.                After usual investigation, the private respondents were challaned by the police before the Court of law. At trial they did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution to prove it, examined PW-01 appellant/complainant Mukhtiar Ali at Exh.17, produced through him carbon copy of FIR of the present case, PW-02 Rab Dino at Exh.18, PW-03 SIO/SIP Bakhat Hussain at Exh.23, produced through him statement of complainant Mukhtiar Ali, PW-04 Akhtiar Ali at Exh.19,  PW-05 Mashir Gulzar Ali at Exh.20, produced through him memo of injuries and place of incident, PW-06 Ali Raza at Exh.21, PW-07 medical officer Dr.Abdul Hameed at Exh.22, produced through him provisional and final medical certificates in respect of the injuries sustained by the complainant and said injured, PW-08 HC Laiq Ali at Exh.24, produced through him roznamcha entry No.05 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. 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 acquitted the private respondents without lawful justification on the basis of improper assessment 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 has 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 about seventeen days; such delay could not be lost sight of. The fire shot injuries as per complainant and PW Ali Raza though were fired at them within very close range, they managed to save by falling in the water-course, which appears to be significant. There is no recovery of empty from the place of incident, which belies the allegation of firing. The roznamcha entry No.05, which was brought on record by the prosecution through HC Muhammad Laiq, as per learned trial Judge is not containing the name of any of the accused. The injuries sustained by the complainant and his witnesses as per medical officer Dr.Abdul Hameed, were simple in nature and those could have been caused to them by falling on the ground. The parties admittedly are disputed over water-course and construction of wall. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents of the charge 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 carry with it double presumption of innocence and interference with acquittal is narrow and limited, which could only be interfered with when the judgment of the acquittal is found to have been passed in arbitrary and 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 justify making interference with it by this Court.  

14.              In view of above, the instant criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine.

                                                                                                JUDGE

.