JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-25 of 2019.
_________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
_________________________________________________________________
For hearing of main case.
10.02.2022
Mr. Irfan Badar Abbasi, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate for private respondents.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.
= * = * = * = * = * =
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.-The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the appellant filed a direct complaint for prosecution of private respondents for various penal sections under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; same after due trial was dismissed with acquittal of the private respondents by learned by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, vide judgment dated 08.04.2019, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring instant criminal acquittal appeal.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without lawful justification; therefore, the impugned judgment being illegal is liable to be set aside.
3. Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents by supporting the impugned judgment have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal.
4. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
5. It is stated by learned trial Court in impugned judgment with reference to statement of the Mukhtiarkar, Taluka Garhi Yasin, that the private respondents are in possession of subject land since 25/30 years and they are claiming to be its purchaser by way of oral agreement to sale and the appellant has not been able to prove that he actually was dispossessed from the subject land in last six years. By making such conclusion, the learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents which is not found cursory or arbitrary to be interfered with by this Court.
6. 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”.
7. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE