JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-103 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on office objection.

02. For orders on M.A.No.5466 /2021 (E/A).

03. For hearing of main case.

04.03.2022

                        Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate for the appellant.

                                                =  *  = * = * = * = * =

                        It is the case of appellant that the proposed accused committed theft of his trees and then threatened him to be killed, for that he lodged an FIR with P.S Hyderi; the private respondents were challaned therein and they after due trial were acquitted by learned 5^th Judicial Magistrate, Larkana, vide judgment dated 13.09.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Magistrate has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without considering the evidence brought on record; therefore, their acquittal is calling for interference by this Court.            

                        Heard arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than one month. There is no recovery of stolen trees and the parties are disputed over the landed property. 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 together with listed application. JUDGE