IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-62 of 2017

Appellant/Complainant :      Nadir Ali son of Arbab Khan Jiskani,

Through Mr.Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, A.P.G            

Date of hearing               :       04.10.2018          

Date of decision              :       04.10.2018                   

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 28.09.2017, passed by learned 1^st Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Kandhkot, whereby he has acquitted the private respondents of the charge. 

2.                It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that the private respondents by way of maltreatment, robbed him of rupees eight thousand, for that he filed a direct complaint before the Court having jurisdiction.  It was brought on record after due enquiry.       

3.                At trial, the appellant/complainant examined him and his witnesses and then closed the side.

4.                The private respondents in their statements recorded u/s.342 Cr.PC denied the allegation of appellant/complainant by stating that they have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party on account of previous enmity. They did not examine themselves on oath in disproof of the prosecution allegation nor led any evidence in their defence.

5.                On evaluation of evidence so produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents of the charge by way of impugned judgment.

6.                It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without proper appreciation of the evidence and without lawful justification. 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.                I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

8.                Admittedly, the case against the private respondents was outcome of a direct complaint. If the appellant/complainant was aggrieved of acquittal of the private respondents, then he was having a right to challenge such acquittal by way of filing appeal, but the same right was subject to grant of special leave as is required by Sub Section (2) to Section 417 Cr.PC. In the instant matter, no such permission is sought for by the appellant/complainant, which has made his appeal to be incompetent in terms of Sub Section (3) to Section 417 Cr.PC.

9.                On merit, it is evident of the record that the direct complaint of the incident was filed by the appellant/complainant with delay of two days, such delay could not be lost sight of, as obviously it is reflecting consultation. The appellant/complainant has not been able to disclose the description of his motorcycle whereby he allegedly at the time of incident was travelling. The appellant/complainant was fair enough to admit his enmity at least with one of the private respondents. In these circumstances, learned trial Court  was right to record acquittal of the private respondents of the offence for which they were charged by extending them benefit of doubt by way of impugned judgment.

10.              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”.

11.              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.  

12.              In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Criminal Acquittal appeal is dismissed.

                                                                                                J U D G E

.