ORDER SHEET

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl.Acquittal Appeal.No.D-42 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on M.A.No.7546/2021 (U/A)

02. For orders on office objection “A”.

03. For orders on M.A.No.7547/2021 (E/A)

04. For hearing of main case.

01.12.2021

Syed Soofan Shah, Advocate for the appellant/complainant.

= * = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the private respondents allegedly committed murder of Anwar Ali by pushing him on the ground and causing him kicks blows, after keeping the appellant under fear of death by pointing their pistols at him, for that the present case was registered. On due trial, the private respondents were acquitted by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, vide judgment dated 01.11.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents on the basis of mis-appraisal of evidence which needs to be re-appraised by this Court by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal.

We have considered the above arguments and perused record.

The FIR of the incident has been lodged by the appellant with delay of more than one month and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. As per unanimous opinion of the medical board, the death of the deceased was natural. The natural death could hardly constitute an offence. Even otherwise, the very case was recommended by the police to be cancelled under “C” class. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by way of impugned judgment and such acquittal is not found to be arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.

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, instant criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine, together with listed applications.

JUDGE