IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 21 of 2021
Appellant/complainant : Allah
Rakhio son of Mehmood Khan, bycaste Rajper, Residetn of village kachho Haji,
Taluka Mehrabpur, District Naushahro Feroze.
Through. Haji Shamsuddin
Rajper, advocate.
Private respondents : Not
on notice.
The State : Through, Miss Shabana Naheed
Mughal, APG for
the State.
Date of hearing : 08-04-2021.
Date of decision : 08-04-2021
JUDGMENT
IRSHAD ALI SHAH,
J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal
of instant acquittal appeal are that the private respondents on due trial were
convicted and sentenced to various terms by learned 1st Civil Judge
& Judicial Magistrate (MTMC) Kandiaro vide his judgment dated 16-12-2020.
They on appeal were acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro
vide his judgment dated 02-02-202, which is impugned by the appellant before
this Court by preferring the instant acquittal appeal.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for
the appellant that the private respondents have been acquitted by learned appellate
Court on the basis of improper assessment of evidence, therefore, their
acquittal is liable to be examined by this Court.
3. Learned APG for the State by supporting
the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal instant acquittal appeal by
contending that the acquittal of the private respondents is based on proper
assessment of evidence.
4. I have considered the above arguments and
perused the record.
5. The FIR of the incident has been lodged
with delay of about one day; such delay having not been explained plausibly by
the appellant; could not be over looked. It is reflecting consultation and
deliberation. There is general allegation of the incident excepting the
injuries sustained by PW Muhammad Saffar, which are attributed to respondent
Shamshad. The injuries sustained by PW Muhammad Saffar as per learned counsel
for the appellant are simple in nature. The parties admittedly are disputed
over plot. In these circumstances, learned appellate Court was right to record
acquittal of the private respondents by way of impugned judgment, which is not
found to be arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court under the
pretext that it is rendered on the basis of improper assessment of evidence.
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 in limine. Judge
Nasim/P.A