JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal.No.S-65 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

 

For hearing of main case.

 

09.12.2021

 

                        Mr. Zafar Ali Malgani, Advocate for the appellant.

 

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the private respondents after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by committing trespass into house of appellant caused him kicks, fists, lathies and hatchet blows with its backside and then went away by threatening him of murder, for that the present case was registered. On due trial, they were acquitted by learned 1st Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Jacobabad, vide judgment dated 24.04.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal.  

2.                     It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Magistrate has not appraised the evidence properly therefore, it needs to be reappraised by this Court. By contending so, he sought for issuance of notices against the private respondents and learned Addl.P.G for the State.

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

4.                     The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than twenty days; such delay could not be overlooked. There is no medical evidence with regard to injuries sustained by the appellant. The appellant and the private respondents are disputed with each other already. In these circumstances, learned trial Magistrate was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by way of impugned judgment; such acquittal is not found to be arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.

5.         In case of State and others vs. Abdul Khaliq  and others (PLD 2011 SC-554),   it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex 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”.

 

6.         In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed in limine.                                                                                                                                                              JUDGE