JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal.No.S-123 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on M.A.No.7731/2021 (U/A).

02. For orders on office objection “A”.

03. For orders on M.A.No.7733/2021 (E/A).

04. For orders on M.A.No.7732/2021 (417 (2)Cr.PC).

05. For hearing of main case.

20.12.2021

                        Mr. Muhammad Bachal Mangi, Advocate for the appellant.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged by the appellant that the private respondents, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by making trespass in his house, committed dacoity and then abducted him and his witnesses and then made demand for ransom for their release, they were set free on raid, arranged by Sessions Court, Qamber, on application under section 491 Cr.PC, for that a direct complaint was filed; it was brought on record, after preliminary record and after due trial, the private respondents were acquitted by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Qamber, by way of judgment dated 31.10.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by way of the instant direct complaint.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without lawful justification; therefore, it needs to be examined by this Court after issuance of notice to other side.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The direct complaint has been filed with delay of about six days and such delay could not be overlooked. The appellant himself was found facing investigation before the official respondents on/or before the alleged incident. The appellant presently is confined at Central Prison, Larkana, having been awarded death penalty in a murder case, lodged against him by one of the private respondent. Obviously, the instant direct complaint was filed by the appellant to compel the private respondents to have compromise with him in murder case. In these circumstances, learned trial Court has rightly recorded acquittal of the private respondents by inter-alia making the following observation;

“It is also pertinent to observe that complainant Sikandar Ali has contradicted, negated as well as falsified his own version set up in the direct complaint as the witnesses also contradicted him”.

                        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”.

                        In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, it could be concluded safely that acquittal of the private respondents recorded by learned trial Court by way of impugned judgment is not found to be arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal,   it is dismissed in limine together with listed applications. JUDGE