IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Cr. Acq. Appeal S-13 of 2020    :         Abid Ali Mughal

vs. Shamir & Others

For the Appellant                       :         Mr. Imdad Ali Mashori     Advocate  

Date of hearing                         :         07.02.2022

Date of announcement              :         07.02.2022

ORDER

Agha Faisal, J.         This criminal acquittal appeal is directed towards the judgment dated 17.01.2020 rendered by the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Shahdadkot. Briefly stated, the learned trial court was of the view that the prosecution has been unable to substantiate its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused were acquitted.

2. Appellant's counsel submits that while the motive of the complainant's allegation has been stated to be a civil dispute over plots but neither the plot numbers nor the particulars have been mentioned in the impugned judgment. It is stated that the learned trial court did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective, hence, the impugned judgment warranted interference in this appeal.

3. Heard and perused.

4. The learned Magistrate appears to have considered each aspect of the allegations against the accused and concluded that the same were not borne from the evidence led there before. So far as the injuries are concerned, the learned trial court observed that the allegations could not substantiated by the evidence and even the medial certificates were found to be lacking. The learned court has observed that the mode and manner of the alleged occurrence as advanced by the complainant is prima facie contradicted by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Trial court has also observed that the claim of tenure of the appellant at the hospital was also belied by the record. The allegations insofar as cash misappropriation and/or damage to the pertinent mobile were also found not to have been substantiated from the evidence. It was also observed that even though the alleged occurrence said to have taken in a thickly populated area there was no independent mashir in such regard. In conclusion the learned trial court observed that contradictions noted in the prosecution witnesses, absence/delay in respect of medical certificates, and the narration in the F.I.R not being supported by the evidence led to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish its case against beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the acquittal.

5. The mention the particulars of civil litigation and or plot numbers may not be material to the proceedings in scrutiny since a conviction is required to be rested on the evidence led in the very case. Learned counsel remained unable to demonstrate any mis-appreciation or misreading of evidence and could not show that the acquittal could not be rested on the rationale employed. The impugned judgment demonstrated detailed appreciation of the evidence and no infirmity could be identified before this court in such regard.

6. It is settled law that an accused is innocent till proven guilty and exoneration by a court of competent jurisdiction confirms the same. Such a vested right may only merit interference if the court below has disregarded material evidence, misread evidence and / or received such evidence illegally. Interference in acquittal ought not to be warranted merely because on re-appraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could also be possible. If, however, the conclusion reached by that Court was such that no reasonable person would conceivably reach the same and was impossible then this Court would interfere in exceptional cases on overwhelming proof resulting in conclusive and irresistible conclusion and that too with a view only to avoid grave miscarriage of justice. The august Supreme Court has envisaged a pivotal test in such matters, being that the finding sought to be interfered with, after scrutiny, should be found as artificial, shocking and ridiculous. No such case has been made out before this Court in the present case.

7. This Court has given careful consideration to the contents of the impugned judgment and is of the view that that the appellant’s counsel has remained unable to identify any infirmity therein, meriting interference of this Court. In view of foregoing, this appeal is dismissed in limine.

JUDGE