ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.412 of 2022

Appellant: Rizwan Alam Ansari through Mr. Tahir Hussain Meo, advocate

Date of Hearing: 04.07.2022

Date of Judgment: 04.07.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. It is alleged that the private respondents after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object fired at the appellant and his witnesses with intention to commit their murder and then went away by causing them ‘danda’ blows for that they were booked and reported upon. After due trial, they were acquitted by learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central vide judgment dated 27.04.2022 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 learned trial court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents on the basis improper assessment of the evidence therefore their acquittal is liable to be examined by this Court.

3. Heard arguments. Perused record.

4. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about four days and no plausible explanation for such delay has been offered by the prosecution. Learned trial court has recorded the acquittal of the private respondents by observing that;

“Not a single person has received any firearm injury. The weapons were not recovered from the possession of accused nor on their pointation. The empties were also not recovered from the place of incident. As per prosecution case 50 to 55 persons attacked on the house of complainant party but the complainant party has given the name of only 06 accused persons which shows the mala fide intention of the complainant party. The motive has also not been mentioned in the FIR. There is material contradiction in the medical and ocular evidence. It is to be noted that the case property has not been mentioned in the charge sheet which is creating doubt in the case of prosecution.”

5. In case of State and others vs. Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC-554), it has been held 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. Nothing is apparent of the record which may suggest that the private respondents have been acquitted by learned trial Court in arbitrary or cursory manner, which may justify this Court to make interfere with their acquittal by way of instant acquittal appeal. It is dismissed in limine.

J U D G E