JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-09 of 2022.
_________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
_________________________________________________________________
For hearing of main case.
07.02.2022
Mr. Agha Zeb Hussain Pathan, Advocate for the appellant.
= * = * = * = * = * =
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.-The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the appellant lodged FIR against the private respondents, alleging against them that they in furtherance of their common intention by making encroachment over her house, has committed theft there-from and then have resorted to aerial firing to create harassment. After due trial, the private respondents were acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Dokri, vide judgment dated 07.12.2021, 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 recorded acquittal of the private respondents without lawful justification, which needs to be examined by this Court.
3. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
4. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about six days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. The acquittal of the private respondents has been recorded by learned trial Magistrate apparently on proper evaluation of the evidence by observing that;
“Nothing incriminating has been recovered wither from the accused or from place of incident. There is no denial of the fact that complainant Mst.Nazeer Khatoon, PWs Mst.Afshan and Habibullah Bughio are related inter-se and are interested witnesses. Hence their evidence cannot be relied upon qua guilt of the accused persons without any independent corroboration, which is lacking in the case. The prosecution evidence is contradictory and ambiguous.”
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, it could be concluded safely that the acquittal of the private respondents 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, which even otherwise is time barred by one day. JUDGE