IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-38 of 2018
Appellant : Nizamuddin s/o Haji Gul Muhammad Dool
Through Mrs.Najaf Shah, Advocate
State : Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G
Date of hearing : 19.10.2018
Date of decision : 19.10.2018
JUDGMENT
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal has impugned judgment, dated 03.07.2018, passed by learned Family Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Jacobabad, whereby the private respondents have been 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, being armed with lathies, by using criminal force, caused lathi blows to appellant/complainant Nizamuddin and PWs Mst.Hawa, Mst.Nadeema, Abdul Wahid and Abdul Wahab, and then went away by issuing them threats of murder, for that the present case was registered.
3. At trial, the private respondent did not plead guilty and prosecution to prove the charge, examined PW-01 appellant/complainant Nizamuddin, produced through him FIR of the present, PW-02 Mashir Abdul Wahab, produced through memo of arrest of private respondents, PW-03 Mst.Hawa, PW-04 Abdul Wahid, PW-05 Mst.Hameeda, PW-06 Mashir/HC Qutubuddin, produced through him memo of injuries, PW-07 Dr.Ghazala Khan, produced through her medical certificate in respect of injuries sustained by female injured, PW-08 Dr.Abdul Rasheed, produced through him medical certificate in respect of injuries sustained by male injured, PW-09 SIO/SIP Khalil Ahmed and then close the side.
4. The private respondents in their statements recorded u/s.342 Cr.PC denied the prosecution allegation’s by pleading innocence. They neither examined themselves on oath in disproof of the prosecution allegation nor anyone in their defence.
5. On evaluation of evidence so produced by the prosecution at trial, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents of the charge by way of impugned judgment.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without any lawful justification, on the basis of improper assessment of the evidence. By contending so, she sought for admission of instant criminal acquittal to its regular hearing.
7. Learned A.P.G by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by contending that it time barred by three days.
8. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
9. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day, such delay could not be lost sight of; it obviously is reflecting consultation and due deliberation. There is general allegation of the incident. The parties admittedly are disputed over matrimonial affairs. The injuries sustained by the male injured as per medical officer Dr.Abdul Rasheed could be sustained due to accident. The instant criminal acquittal appeal as is contended to be by learned A.P.G is time barred by three days. In these circumstances, it would be hard to reverse the finding of acquittal.
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 justify making interference with it by this Court by way of instant appeal, it is dismissed accordingly.
J U D G E