ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Acquittal Appeal No.S-30 of 2020

DATE                          ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

01. For orders on M.A.No.1634/2020 (U/A)

02. For orders on office objection

03. For orders on M.A.No.1635/2020 (E/A)

04.  For hearing of main case.

04.05.2020.

Mr.Inam Rehman Abro, Advocate for the appellant.           

                                                            -.-.-.-.-.-.-.

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 20.03.2020, passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ratodero, 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 allegedly in furtherance of their common intention, fired at complainant Niaz Ali with intention to commit his murder and then went away by causing lathies and butt blows to him and making aerial firing to create harassment, for that the private respondents were booked and reported upon by the police.

3.                    At trial, the private respondents did not plead guilty to the charge and the prosecution to prove it, examined in all five witnesses including the appellant/complainant and then closed the side.

4.                    The private respondents in their statements recorded u/s.342 Cr.PC denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence by stating that they have been involved in this case falsely by appellant/complainant in order to satisfy his dispute with them over the landed property for which the civil litigation is already going on, they did not examine anyone in their defense or themselves on oath.

5.                    On evaluation of evidence so produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents of the charge by way of impugned judgment.

6.                    It is contended by learned counsel for appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has acquitted the private respondents of the charge on the basis of improper appreciation of the evidence; otherwise the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the private respondents beyond shadow of doubt by way of cogent evidence. 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.                    I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

8.                    The FIR of the incident has been lodged with unplausible delay of two days, such delay could not be overlooked; the firing is proved to be ineffective one; the parties admittedly are disputed over the landed property. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt by making following observation;

“the complainant and author of FIR namely ASI Zulfiqar have made dishonest improvements to make strengthen the prosecution case by saying that on the day of incident, names of accused were disclosed in NC, but neither said NC was incorporated in the FIR, nor same is produced before this Court, such improvements are made dishonestly, which cannot be relied upon”.

9.                    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”.

10.                  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 interference with it by this Court by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal; it is dismissed in limine together with listed applications.

                                                                                                J U D G E