IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 06 of 2019.

Appellant/complainant: Shafi Muhammad son of Dater Dino Tunio, R/O Village Wali Muhammad Tunio, Taluka Gambat, District Khairpur.

Through. Mr. Sardar Akber F.Ujjan, advocate.

None for the private respondents.

The State : Imran Mobeen Khan, APG.

Date of hearing : 17-05-2021.

Date of decision : 17-05-2021

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal are that the private respondents after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object allegedly by using criminal force, not only took away sugarcane crop of the appellant, but fired at him with intention to commit his murder, for that they were booked and reported upon.

2. After due trial, the private respondents were acquitted by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Gabmat, vide his judgment dated 13-12-2018, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the private respondents by using criminal force have fired at the appellant with intention to commit his murder, have taken away his sugarcane crop and then have dispossessed him from the land where it was planted, such fact the appellant has been able to prove by brining on record cogent evidence, which has not been considered by learned trial Court in true spirit, therefore, acquittal of the private respondents needs to be examined by this Court.

4. Learned APG for the State by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal.

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

6. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one month; such delay reflects consultation. The 161 Cr.P.C statements of the P.Ws have been recorded by police with delay of about 35 days even to FIR; such delay has made the evidentiary value of their version to be zero. The firing allegedly made at the appellant with intention to commit his murder proved to be ineffective, which appears to be surprising. The appellant and the private respondents admittedly are disputed over the possession of the land, the sugarcane crop whereupon was harvested. 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.

7. 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”.

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

Nasim/P.A