JUDGMENT SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR.
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-10 of 2004
Appellant: State through Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Additional
Prosecutor General.
Versus
Respondents : None present for the Respondent.
Date of hearing: 03.03.2022.
Date of Judgment: 03.03.2022.
J U D G M E N T
AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J-. The appellant/State has assailed the
judgement dated 07.01.2004 passed by learned Civil Judge & Judicial
Magistrate Pir-jo-goth in Criminal case No. 102/2002 arising out of Crime No.
77/2002 of Police Station Ahmedpur under section 13(d) Arms Ordinance whereby
acquitting the respondent/accused from the charge.
2. Since
the facts of the prosecution case have already been mentioned in the impugned
judgment as well as in the memo of appeal, therefore, there is no need to
repeat the same.
3. Learned
Additional Prosecutor General contends that the impugned judgment suffers from
misreading and non-reading of the evidence available on record. He further
contends that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses according to its prospective otherwise the respondent was
not entitled for acquittal.
4. I
have heard learned Additional P.G and perused the material available le on
record.
5. After
going through the material and impugned judgment of the learned trial Court it
appears that there are many contradictions in the statements of prosecution
witnesses examined by the trial Court such as mashir HC Liaquat Ali stated that
they left PS vide entry No.12 at bout 1300 hours while on the contrary
complainant SIP QalabAbbass Shah stated that they left PS vide entry No.13 at
1300 hours. Mashirsated that they reached at Mian Khan bridge where they
received spy information about wanted accused Lal Dino who was standing at Bus
Stop Ali Muhammad Narejo while complainant SIP QalabAbbass stated that they met
with spy informant at various places and reached at Mian Khan Bridge where
received spy information about wanted accused. Mashir HC Liaquat stated
distance between Police Station and Mian Khan bridge is about 10/11 K.Ms while
on the contrary complainant stated that the distance between Police Station and
Mian Khan bridge is about 05 kilometers and there are also many other contradictions
which creates doubt about the implication of accused by the police and thus the prosecution failed to prove its
case. Moreover, instant acquittal appeal pertains to year 2004 which was kept
in abeyance by this Court till the arrest of respondent vide order dated
05.08.2019, however, I found that a well reasoning, comprehensive and law
supported judgment has been passed by the learned trial Court which does not
call for any interference by this Court, hence I do not find any merit in this
appeal, therefore, same is dismissed.
Irfan/PA
14.
I am fully satisfied with appraisal of
evidence done by the learned trial Court and I am of the view that while
evaluating the evidence, the difference is to be maintained in appeal from
conviction and acquittal appeal and in the latter case, interference is to be
made only when there is gross misreading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of
justice. Learned counsel for the appellant failed to disclose any misreading
and non-reading of evidence. In the case of Muhammad Zafar and another v.
Rustam and others(2017 SCMR 1639), the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
Pakistan has held that:-
“We have examined the record and the reasons
recorded by the learned appellate court for acquittal of respondent No.2 and
for not interfering with the acquittal of respondents No.3 to 5 are borne out
from the record. No misreading of evidence could be pointed out by the learned
counsel for the complainant/appellant and learned Additional prosecutor General
for the State, which would have resulted into grave miscarriage of justice. The
learned courts below have given valid and convincing reasons for the acquittal
of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 which reasons have not been found by us to be
arbitrary, capricious of fanciful warranting interference by this Court. Even
otherwise this Court is always slow in interfering in the acquittal of accused
because it is well settled law that in criminal trial every person is innocent
unless proven guilty and upon acquittal by a court of competent jurisdiction
such presumption doubles. As a sequel of the above discussion, this appeal is
without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed”
15. The sequel of the above discussion is that I
am satisfied with the appreciation of evidence evaluated by the learned trial
Court while recording acquittal of the respondents/accused persons by extending
the benefit of the doubt, which does not call for any interference by this
Court. Consequently, the instant appeal merits no consideration and is
dismissed accordingly.
16. These of reasons of my short order announced
in earlier part of the day whereby the instant acquittal was dismissed.
JUDGE
Irfan/PA