IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-07 of 2018
Appellant/Complainant : Mst.Shamshad Begum Dashti
Through Mr.Ahsan Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate
Respondents : Through Mr.Abid Hussain Qadri,
Advocate for respondents No.3 & 7,
The State Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G
Date of hearing : 09.11.2018
Date of decision : 09.11.2018
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 05.01.2018, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, whereby the private respondents were acquitted of the offence for which they were charged on hearing of their appeal.
2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the private respondents allegedly after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, being armed with deadly weapons, after keeping the appellant/complainant and her witnesses under fear of death, in order to satisfy their enmity with her over the landed property, take away 40 mounds of wheat crop, for that the present case was registered.
3. At trial, the private respondents did not plead guilty the to charge and the prosecution to prove it examined appellant/complainant and her witnesses, as are detailed in the impugned judgment 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 by stating that they have been involved in this case falsely by the appellant/complainant due to matrimonial dispute. 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 Magistrate finding the private respondents to be guilty for offence punishable u/s 392, 506/2 & 147/148 r/w Section 149 PPC, convicted and sentenced them to various terms, as are detailed in his judgment. On appeal so preferred, the conviction and sentence recorded against the private respondents by learned trial Magistrate were set aside by learned Appellate Court and consequently they were acquitted of the offence for which they were charged.
6. The appellant/complainant being aggrieved of acquittal of the private respondents by learned Appellate Court has impugned the same before this Court, as stated above.
7. It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the private respondents beyond shadow of doubt; the learned Appellate Court has acquitted the private respondents without any lawful justification by setting aside the judgment of learned trial Magistrate. By contending so, he sought for admission of the instant criminal acquittal appeal to its regular hearing for further action against the private respondents.
8. Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 7 have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by contending that the very case was false, it was lodged by the appellant/complainant only to settle her dispute with the private respondents over the landed property.
9. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
10. The FIR of the incident has been lodged by the appellant/complainant after seeking direction from learned Ex-Officio Justice of Peace having jurisdiction, which appears to be significant. The appellant/complainant and her witnesses are related inter-se and they admittedly are disputed with the private respondents over the landed property; such dispute between them as per appellant/complainant is pending adjudication before the Civil Court having jurisdiction. In these circumstances, the learned Appellate Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by setting aside the judgment of learned trial Magistrate by extending them benefit of doubt with very cogent reason which reads as under;
“The evidence of complainant Mst.Shamshad Begum is herself is contradictory, as she stated in her cross conducted by learned counsel Mr.Abid Hussain Kalhoro that, the disputed land is in her possession, but in further cross, the disputed land is not in her possession. Complainant Mst.Shamshad Begum stated in cross that, there is dispute between them over the landed property, whereas eye witness Haji Ismail (husband of complainant) stated in his cross that, there is no dispute between them and accused. Complainant stated in her statement that, the entire episode of the incident was of one or one and half hour, but eye witness Altaf Ahmed stated in his cross that, time consumed two or two and half hour during incident. Complainant stated in her cross that, she had already filed the Civil Suit against the accused for her landed property, whereas Altaf Ahmed (son of complainant) stated in his cross that, no civil litigation is filed for obtaining share from accused from the disputed land property. Eye witness Haji Ismail stated in his cross that, after lodgment of FIR, his statement was not recorded by the police. Complainant in her cross examination that, they have filed the Civil Suit against the accused persons regarding possession of disputed property. Complainant stated in her cross that, at the time of visiting of place of incident, police had not recorded statement of other persons and she has not remember the actual time of visiting the place of incident. Complainant stated in her cross that, she do not remember the colour of Datsun, in which alleged robbed property was taken away”.
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 of Appellate Court has been passed in arbitrary or cursory manner.
14. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
..-