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