IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-41 of 2017
Appellant/Complainant : Rustam Ali s/o Ghulam Rasool Khokhar
Through Mr.Ahmed Bux Abro, Advocate
State : Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G
Date of hearing : 09.11.2018
Date of decision : 09.11.2018
JUDGMENT
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal has impugned judgment dated 21.06.2017, passed by learned Special Judge Anti Corruption (Provincial) Larkana, whereby he has acquitted the private respondents 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 by committing trespass into the house of appellant/complainant took him and his witnesses together with their belongings to police station, Nasirabad, tortured them and then released them after acceptance of bribe of rupees One Lac. It was brought on record by learned trial Court after regular enquiry.
3. The private respondents did not plead guilty to the charge and the appellant/complainant to prove it examined himself, PWs Qurban Ali and Akhtar Ali 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 pleading innocence. 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 appellant/complainant, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents of the offence for which they were charged by way of impugned judgment with the following observation;
“From the perusal of complaint filed by the complainant and evidence of witnesses there are material contradiction in their evidence as such the evidence brought on record is inconsistent. The plea taken by the accused during the trial that brother of complainant Liaquat Ali is involved in criminal case as such number of FIRs are registered against him at various police stations of District Larkana as such they arrested him and recovered stolen property from his possession and later-on challaned him before the Court of law and complainant in order to put the pressure upon the police officials had filed false applicatoins against them to various agencies.
6. It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has acquitted the private respondents of the offence, for which they were charged 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. Learned A.P.G for the State sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by contending that it has been filed by the appellant/complainant without seeking special leave to appeal which is mandatory in terms of section 417 (2) Cr.PC.
8. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
9. Admittedly, no special leave to appeal is sought for by the appellant/complainant prior to filing of instant criminal acquittal appeal, which is necessary in terms of Section 417 (2) Cr.PC, without any lawful justification, as the very case is outcome of direct complaint. Be that as it may, the incident in first instance as per appellant/complainant he sought for direction for recording of his FIR, it was declined to him upto this Court and he then filed the direct complaint of the incident before learned trial Court, which appears to be significant. The filing of complaint of the instant case by the appellant/complainant with considerable delay to the incident could not be lost sight of. There is no independent witness to the incident. The complainant and his witnesses are related inter-se as such their evidence was rightly disbelieved by learned trial Court being contradictory to each other. 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
..