IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Cr. Acq. Appeal No. S-97 of 2021
1.
For orders on office objection at flag `A`
2.
For orders on MA No.4941/2021
3.
For hearing of main case
Date of hearing: 29.10.2021
Dated of decision: 29.10.2021
Mr.
Khalid Hussain Soomro, Advocate for the appellant
Mr.
Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, Deputy Prosecutor General
O R D E R
Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J. – Instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is filed
against the judgment dated 31.07.2021, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II
(MCTC) Pano Aqil, whereby
the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents No.1 to 4/accused of the
charge.
2. Learned
counsel for the appellant/complainant has contended that the impugned judgment
passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, unlawful and against the
principle of justice; that this is the case of complete misreading and
non-reading of evidence; that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate
the version of the complainant supported by other witnesses; that the
complainant has fully proved his case against the accused. He prayed for converting acquittal of the respondents into
conviction.
3. Learned
DPG supported the impugned judgment and has contended that there appears no
illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and the trial court has
rightly acquitted the respndents.
4.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant, learned DPG and
perused the material available on the record.
5. Perusal
of record shows that appellant has miserably failed to establish extra ordinary
reasons and circumstances, whereby the acquittal judgment recorded by the trial
court may be interfered with by this court. It appears that the complainant and
witnesses have failed to prove allegation against the accused/respondent by
producing sound and cogent evidence.
6. It
is not out of context to make here necessary clarification that an appeal
against acquittal has distinctive features and the approach to deal with; the
appeal against conviction is distinguishable from the appeal against the
acquittal because presumption of double innocence is attached in the latter
case. Order of acquittal can only be interfered with, if it is found on its
face to be capricious, perverse, and arbitrary in nature or based on
misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or is artificial, arbitrary and lead to
gross miscarriage of justice. Mere disregard of technicalities in a criminal
trial without resulting injustice is not enough for interference. Suffice is to
say that an order/judgment of acquittal gives rise to strong presumption of
innocence rather double presumption of innocence is attached to such an order.
While examining the facts in the order of acquittal, substantial weight should
be given to the findings of the lower Courts, whereby accused were exonerated
from the commission of crime as held by the Apex Court in the case of Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad v. Fahim Afzal (1998
SCMR 1281) and Jehangir v. Amanullah and others (2010 SCMR
491). It is settled principle of law as held in the plethora of case law that
acquittal would be unquestionable when it could not be said that acquittal was
either perverse or that acquittal judgment was improper or incorrect as it is
settled that whenever there is doubt about guilt of accused, its benefit must
go to him and Court would never come to the rescue of prosecution to fill-up
the lacuna appearing in evidence of prosecution case as it would be against
established principles of dispensation of criminal justice.
7. There is hardly any improbability
or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned
trial court, which being based on sound and cogent reasons does not warrant any
interference by this Court and is accordingly maintained and the instant appeal
is dismissed along with pending application.
JUDGE
Suleman
Khan/PA