JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-32 of 2020.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on office objection.

02. For hearing of main case.

18.02.2022

                        Mr. Safdar Ali Ghouri, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Private respondents in person.

                        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 private respondents with rest of the culprits, allegedly after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, caused fires hot injuries to PWs Muhammad Hanif, Abdul Majeed and Irshad with intention to commit their murder and then went away by insulting the complainant party and making fires in air to create harassment, for that the present case was registered. On conclusion of trial, the private respondents were acquitted by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Qamber, vide judgment dated 09.04.2020, 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 Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without lawful justification, which needs to be examined by this Court.

3.                     Learned Addl.P.G for the State and private respondents in person have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by supporting the impugned judgment.

4.                     I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

5.                     The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 15 days and such delay having not been explained plausibly by the prosecution could not be overlooked. The prosecution was not able to examine the appellant/complainant on account of his illness; the benefit of his non examination could safely be resolved in favour of the private respondents. PW/Mashir Muhammad Rafique has not supported the case of prosecution impliedly by stating that his signatures/LTIs were obtained on blank papers and/or papers written in English. Medical officer Dr. Asadullah was fair enough to admit that the Special Medical Board was of the opinion that the probability of manipulation of injuries of the injured cannot be ruled out. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt by way of impugned judgment, 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 facts and reasons discussed above, the instant criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE