IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-42 of 2018

Appellant                      :         Mehrullah son of Moula Bux Nosani Bugti

Through Mr.Ashiq Illahi Sundrani, Advocate

State                                :       Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G 

Date of hearing               :       10.10.2018          

Date of decision              :       10.10.2018                   

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that appellant/complainant lodged FIR Crime No.10/2015 offence punishable u/s.337-F(ii) A(ii), 147, 148 PPC with P.S, Bhittai Colony, Kandhkot, with allegation that the private respondents after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, have caused lathies blows to him and his witnesses. On investigation, the private respondents were challaned and they on trial were convicted by learned trial Magistrate and on appeal, were acquitted by learned Appellate Court. The appellant/complainant being aggrieved of acquittal of the private respondents has impugned the same before this Court by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal.  

2.                It is alleged that the leaned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the learned Appellate Court has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for admission of instant criminal acquittal appeal to its regular hearing.

3.                I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

4.                As per FIR there is general allegation of the incident. At trial, the complainant and his witness have improved their version by assigning individual role to the private respondents to some extent. The improvement could hardly be relied upon. There is no independent witness to the incident. The parties are already disputed over the landed property. In these circumstances, the learned Appellate 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.

5.                In case of Akhtiar Ali and others Vs. the State (2008 SCMR-06), it has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that;

“When a witness improves his version to strengthen the prosecution case, his improved statement subsequently made cannot be relied upon as the witness has improved his statement dishonestly, therefore, his credibility becomes doubtful on the well-known principle of criminal jurisprudence that improvements once found deliberate and dishonest cast serious doubt on the veracity of such witness”.

6.                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.

7.                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”.

8.                Nothing is brought on record which may suggest that the impugned judgment has been passed by learned Appellate Court in arbitrary or cursory manner, which may justify making interference with it by this Court by way of instant appeal, it is dismissed in limine.

                                                                                            J U D G E

..