IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 19 of 2021

Appellant/complainant: Ali Gohar son of Khan Muhammad Rajper bycaste, R/O village Haji Baig Muhammad Rajper, P.O Paddidan, Taluk and District Naushahro Feroze.

Through. Mr. Nusrat Hussain Memon, advocate.

Private respondents : Not on notice.

Date of hearing : 29-04-2021.

Date of decision : 29-04-2021

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The private respondents allegedly robbed the appellant and his witnesses of their mobile phone and other belongings, for that they were booked and reported upon. On due trial they were been acquitted of the charge by learned Judge Consumer Court/Judicial Magistrate Naushahro Feroze vide his judgment dated 13-01-2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Magistrate has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without assigning the cogent reasons, therefore such acquittal is liable to be set-aside.

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

4. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about four months; such delay could not be over looked. Nothing has been brought on record by the appellant or his witnesses, which may prove their ownership over the robbed mobile phones. The appellant and the private respondents being related inter-se are disputed over passage. In these circumstances, learned trial Magistrate 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.

5. 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”.

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

Nasim/P.A