IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S- 70 of 2021

1. For Orders on office objection.

2. For Orders on MA No. 3690/2021.

3. For hearing of main case.

Haji Shamsuddin Rajper advocate for appellant.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG for the State.

Date of hearing 28-01-2022.

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J.- Through the instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal, the appellant/complainant has impugned the Order dated 27-05-2021passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Mirwah in Criminal Complaint No.77/2020 “Re. Mst. Hameedan Khatoon Vs. Janan & others” filed by the appellant/complainant against the respondents, which was dismissed by acquitting the respondents, hence this appeal.

2. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant appeal are that the appellant/complainant is owner of agricultural land bearing S.No. 285 area about 1-20 acres situated in Deh Kot Laloo, Taluka Faiz Ganj, District Khairpur, which is also entered into the revenue record. It is further alleged that on 16-07-2020 at 0900 hours the private respondents duly armed with deadly weapons came at the land and forcibly disposed the appellant, hence this appeal.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant/complainant is owner of the disputed land, but the private respondents illegally occupied the same and forcibly dispossessed him; learned trial Court has passed the impugned order without lawful justification.

4. Mr. Aftab Hussain Shar advocate files power on behalf of private respondents Nos. 1 to 6, which is taken on record.

5. Learned DPG for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent have sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal by contending that the impugned order is well reasoned.

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

7. Perusal of record reflects that after framing of the charge against the private respondents the evidence of the complainant and her witnesses was recorded. During the evidence, the complainant herself admitted that father of the accused persons is shareholder of the property to the extent of 34% and 32% respectively with the complainant and such facts is also affirmed by PWs Sajid Hussain and Samo and hey categorically deposed that complainant ad accused persons are join shareholders in the disputed property. In these circumstances, learned trial 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.

8. 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”.

9. In view of above, no illegality or material irregularity is pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant which may justify making interference with the impugned order by this Court by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal, it is dismissed accordingly.

Judge

Nasim/P.A