ORDER SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Acquittal Appeal No.S-150 of 2022
(Abdul Qudoos Solangi Vs. Imam Ali and others)
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.
For Orders on office objection.
2.
For Orders on MA No. 5174/2022.
3.
For hearing of main case.
07-03-2023.
Mr. Mansoor
Hussain Maitlo, advocate
for appellant.
.-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
1. The
facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.
Acquittal Appeal are that the private respondents allegedly after having formed
an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object caused lathi and hatchet blows with its back side to the appellant
and then went away by insulting him, for that they were booked and reported
upon by the police. On conclusion of trial, they were acquitted of the charge by
learned IInd Civil judge & Judicial Magistrate Bhiria vide judgment dated 06-10-2022, which is impugned by
the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Crl.
Acquittal Appeal.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for
the appellant that learned trial Magistrate has recorded acquittal of the
private respondents on the basis of misappraisal of evidence; therefore their acquittal
is liable to be set aside by this Court.
3. Heard arguments and perused the record.
4. The FIR of the incident has been lodged
with delay of about 06 days; such delay having not been explained plausibly
could not be overlooked. On asking, it was admitted by the appellant that his five
applications u/s 22-A/B Cr.P.C seeking direction for
recording of his FIR, prior to the present incident have been dismissed. The Civil
litigation between the parties admittedly is pending adjudication before the
Civil Court having jurisdiction. The nature of the injuries allegedly sustained
by the appellant during course of the present incident, on examination has been
changed, by Medical Board. In these circumstances, learned trial Magistrate was
right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit
of doubt, such
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 the facts and reasons
discussed above, the instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal
fails and it is dismissed together with listed applications.
JUDGE
Nasim /PA