ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 62 of 2021

(Gul Badin vs. Baseer Khan and others)

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For orders on M.A.No. 8994/2022

2. For orders as to non-prosecution at flag A

03.08.2022

Syed Aamir Ali Shah advocate for the applicant

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the private respondents in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries to the appellant and his brothers, for that they were booked and reported upon. On due trial, they were acquitted of the charge by learned Judicial Magistrate No.XVII/MTMC Karachi East vide judgment dated 25.11.2020, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Acquittal appeal, which is appearing to be barred by time for 03 days.

2. On limitation, it is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that it was human mistake therefore, same to be condoned. On merits, it is stated by learned counsel for appellant that learned trial Magistrate has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without lawful justification and on the basis of improper assessment of the evidence, therefore, their acquittal is liable to be examined by this Court.

3. Heard arguments and perused the record.

4. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 03 days such delay has not been plausibly explained, therefore, same could not be overlooked. The parties are already disputed and civil litigation between them is going on. In these circumstances, learned Magistrate was right to record acquittal of private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt as such their 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 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. In view of above, the instant Acquittal Appeal fails and is dismissed in limine, which even otherwise was found to be time barred as having been filed beyond prescribed period of limitation willfully.

JUDGE