JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-07 of 2022.
_________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
_________________________________________________________________
01. For orders on M.A.No.407/2022 (U/A).
02. For orders on office objection.
03. For orders on M.A.No.408 /2022 (E/A).
04. For hearing of main case.
25.02.2022
Mr. Amanullah Luhur, Advocate for the appellant.
= * = * = * = * = * =
1. Urgency granted.
2. Deferred.
3 & 4. Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the appellant by making allegation of mischief with watercourse by installing illegal pipes therein, lodged FIR with police against the private respondents, who after due trial were acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate, Tangwani, vide judgment dated 08.01.2022, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Magistrate has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without considering the evidence on record; therefore, their acquittal is calling for interference by this Court.
I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
The appellant has nothing to do with the watercourse, which is a public property. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that the appellant was having a reason to report damage to the watercourse allegedly at the hands of private respondents, then lodgment of the FIR on his part with delay of about seven months could not be lost sight of. There is no recovery of pipes allegedly installed in above said water-course. In these circumstances, the learned trial Magistrate 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.
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 facts and reasons discussed above, the instant criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed in limine. JUDGE