IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 31 of 2021

Appellant/complainant: Dil Murad son of Bahar, bycaste Malik, Resident of Shahnawaz Khan Khush Jo Plot, Taluka Kandiaro, District Naushahro Feroze.

Through. Mr. Saifullah Soomro, advocate.

Private respondents : Not on notice.

Date of hearing : 01-04-2021.

Date of decision : 01-04-2021

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by preferring instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 10-02-2021 passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge Sukkur, whereby he has acquitted the privates respondents of the offence for which they were charged.

2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant appeal are that the private respondents after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, after keeping complainant Dil Murad and his witness under fear of death and wrongful restraint, caused Lathi and Iron rods blows to PW Jeeand Khan with intention to commit his murder and then went away by insulting the complainant party, for that the they were booked and reported upon.

3. At the trial, the private respondents did not plead guilty to the charge and prosecution to prove it, examined appellant/complainant and his witnesses and then closed its side.

4. The private respondents in their statements recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution’s allegation by pleading their innocence by stating that they have been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party only to satisfy its matrimonial dispute with them. They did not examine anyone in their defence or themselves on oath.

5. On conclusion of trial, learned trial Court recorded acquittal of the private respondents by way of impugned judgment.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents on the basis of improper assessment of evidence, therefore such acquittal is liable to be set-aside.

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

8. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about four days; such delay having not been explained plausibly by the appellant/complainant; could not be over looked. It is reflecting consultation and deliberation. As per FIR, there is general allegation of causing Lathis and iron rods blows to PW Jeeand Khan. The parties as has come on record are disputed/inimical with each other over matrimonial affairs. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by way of impugned judgment, such acquittal is not found to be arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.

9. 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”.

10. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed in limine. Judge

Nasim/P.A