IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-05 of 2014

Appellant/complainant  :           Mst.Shabana Gul d/o Gul Hassan Malghani

Through Mr.Irfan Badar Abbasi, Advocate

Respondents                        :         Through Mr.Abdul Rehman Bhutto,

Advocate for private respondents

The State through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G 

Date of hearing                    :         19.11.2018             

Date of decision                  :         19.11.2018                         

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal has impugned judgment dated 28.01.2014, passed by learned 4^th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, 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 appellant/complainant lodged FIR with P.S Dakkhan, alleging therein that the private respondents with rest of the culprit, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by committing trespass in her house, attempted to abduct her and on resistance caused injuries to her and PW Mehmood with burning sticks and then went away by misappropriating their money worth Rs.15000/-, for that the present case was registered.

3.                    At trial, the private respondent did not plead guilty to the charge, and the prosecution to prove it, examined PW-01 Medical Officer Baby Akhtiar, produced through her medical certificate in respect of injuries sustained by appellant/complainant, PW-02  Medical officer Dr. Rabail, produced through him medical certificate in respect of injuries sustained by PW Mehmood, PW-03 appellant/complainant, produced through her FIR of the present case, PW-04 HC Rajib Ali, produced through him memo of injuries and memo of vardat, PW-05 Mehmood, PW-06 Tariq Mehmood and then closed the side.

4.                    The private respondents in their statements recorded under section 342 Cr.PC denied the prosecution’s allegation by pleading innocence. They did not examine anyone in their defence or themselves on oath in disproof of the prosecution’s allegation.

5.                    On evaluation of evidence so produced by the appellant/complainant, learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents by way of judgment, as stated above.

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 lawful justification and on the basis of improper evaluation of the evidence. By contending so, he sought for appropriate action against the private respondents.

7.                    Learned A.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents by supporting the impugned judgment sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by contending that the impugned judgment is well reasoned.

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

9.                    None has been abducted. The parties are already disputed over matrimonial affairs. PW Mehmood reported his arrival for examination of his injuries, treatment and certificate on the next date of incident, which appears to be significant. No cloth allegedly burnt during course of incident was secured by the police. PW Mashir Gul Hassan and SIO/SIP Imdad Ali Shar were given up by the prosecution for no obvious reason; the inference which could be drawn of their non-examination would be that they were not going to support the case of prosecution. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents of the charge by extending them benefit of doubt by making very cogent observation, which reads as below;

“Complainant, PW Mehmood are related inter-se and no any independent person had been made as witness of alleged occurrence, though incident is shown to have taken place in the populated area. Complainant herself had admitted in her cross examination, that many persons from the village had gathered at the place of vardat, but no body from them had been cited as witness of the occurrence. I.O HC Rajib Ali had not made any private person as mashir of the inspection of the injuries, place of vardat. Complainant deposed in chief examination that accused Ali Hassan, Nek Muhammad took the burning woods from the stove whereas, PW Mehmood contradicted such fact and deposed that accused Irshad, Sudheer, Muneer, Sikandar took the burning woods from the stove and caused injuries to him and complainant over the different parts of body. Complainant deposed in her chief examination that accused Sudheer, Irshad, Ali Hassan and Munir caught hold her from her arms while PW Mehmood deposed that accused Sudheer, Irshad and Sikandar caught hold complainant from her arms. Moreover, prosecution has failed to examine any mashir of the place of vardat and mashirnama of inspection of injury. That author of the FIR is HC Rajib Ali had investigated the case himself and he deposed that he prepared the mashirnama of injuries of injured in presence of mashirs Tariq Mehmood and Gul Hassan and no lady constable has been cited as mashir. I.O HC Rajib Ali stated that he referred the injured persons on the same day when FIR was lodged while medical certificate of injured Mst.Shabana shows that she was referred to RHC Madeji on 24.09.2011. HC Rajib Ali stated that at the time of inspection of the place of vardat, he did not find any burnt house article and not the fire wood, with which accused alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant and PW Mehmood, Medical Officer Dr.Rabeel has also deposed that while treatment, he did not found the clothes of injured Mehmood burnt”.

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 by the appellant/complainant, which may suggest that the impugned judgment has been passed by learned trial Court in arbitrary or cursory manner, which may call for any interference by this Court.  

12.                  In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

                                                                                                                J U D G E

..