IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-36 of 2017

Appellant/Complainant :      Ghulam Hussain s/o Abdul Ghaffar Soomro,

Through Mr.Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate                      

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

Date of hearing               :       25.10.2018          

Date of decision              :       25.10.2018                   

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 03.06.2017, passed by learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, in Criminal Appeal No.03/2017 “Re.Anwar Ali Vs. the State“ whereby he set-aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the private respondent by learned trial Magistrate by way of judgment dated 27.05.2017, passed in Criminal Case No.155/2016 “Re. The State Vs. Anwar Ali and others”.

2.                The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the private respondent with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, after keeping appellant/complainant Ghulam Hussain under fear of death by pointing his pistol at him, caused lathi blows to PW Sajid Hussain and then went away by insulting the complainant party, for that the present case was registered.    

3.                At trial, the private respondent with rest of the culprits did not plead guilty to the charge, and the prosecution to prove it, examined PW-01 appellant/complainant Ghulam Hussain, produced through him FIR of the present case, PW-02 Mashir Shafique Ahmed, produced through him memo of injuries and memo of place of incident, PW-03 Nooruddin, PW-04 Sajid Hussain, PW-05 medical officer Dr.Khursheed Ahmed, produced through him provisional and final medical certificates in respect of injuries sustained by PW Sajid Hussain, PW-06 ASI Abdul Qadeer, PW-07 SIO/SIP Abdullah and then closed the side.  

4.                The private respondent with rest of the culprits in their statements recorded u/s.342 Cr.PC denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocent by stating that they have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party. 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 Magistrate acquitted co-accused Ameer Bux alias Munawar Ali while convicted and sentenced the private respondent, as below;

“he is convicted u/s 245(ii) Cr.PC and is punished under section 337-F(i) and sentenced to one year simple imprisonment and in addition to that he is also liable to pay Daman of Rupees twenty thousands (Rs.20,000/-) to victim/injured Sajid Hussain. He has further committed the offence by joining unlawful assembly being armed with lathi, hence he is punished u/s 147 PPC and is sentenced to six months simple imprisonment. He has also committed offence punishable u/s 148 PPC and is sentenced to one year simple imprisonment”.

6.                On appeal, the private respondent was acquitted of the charge by learned Appellate Court, as detailed above by way of judgment which the appellant/complainant has impugned before this Court by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal.

7.                It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that the private respondent has actively participated in commission of the incident by causing lathi blows to PW/victim Sajid Hussain, he as such was rightly convicted by learned trial Magistrate, such conviction has been set aside by learned Appellate Court without any lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for adequate action against the private respondent.

8.                Learned A.P.G has supported the impugned judgment.

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

10.              Admittedly, there is unexplained and unplausible delay of about three days in lodgment of the FIR, such delay could not be lost sight of, as it is reflecting consultation. As per appellant/complainant there is counter version of the incident. There is no recovery of lathi from the private respondent. Co-accused Ameer Bux alias Munawar Ali on similar evidence has already been acquitted by learned trial Magistrate. In these circumstances, the involvement of the private respondent in this case, if is seen in the light of existing enmity between the parties over the landed property is appearing to be doubtful one.

11.              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”.

12.              Nothing has been brought on record which may suggest that the impugned judgment has been passed by learned Appellate Court in arbitrary or cursory manner, which may call for any interference by this Court.  

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

                                                                                               J U D G E