ORDER SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl.
Acquittal Appeal No.S-58 of 2021
(Asghar Ali Lakahn Vs. The State and others)
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.
For Orders on MA No. 2856/2021.
2.
For Orders on office objection.
3.
For Orders on MA No. 2857/2021.
4.
For hearing of main case.
02-03-2023.
Mr. Shabbir
Ali Bozdar advocate for appellant.
Mr.
Shafi Muhammad Mahar, DPG
for the State.
.-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
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 by committing
trespass into the house of the appellant, abducted his wife Mst.
Fahmeeda with intention to subject her to rape and/or
to get her marry with someone else, for that they were booked and reported
upon. On conclusion of trial, they were acquitted by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge Mirpur
Mathelo vide judgment dated 29-04-2021, which is
impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal.
It is contended by learned counsel
for the appellant that learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the
private respondents without appreciating the evidence brought on record;
therefore their acquittal is liable to be set aside by this Court, which is
opposed by learned APG for the State by supporting the impugned judgment.
Heard arguments and perused the
record.
The FIR of the incident has been
lodged with delay of about 08 hours; such delay having not been explained
plausibly could not be overlooked. PW Mst. Fahmeeda was let to go by the private respondents allegedly
after receipt of Bhung
money, which appears to be surprising. On return she was not subjected to
medical examination, which was essential in case like the present one; such
omission could not be overlooked. Parties are already disputed over abduction
of Mst. Naseeran at the
hands of brother of the appellant. In these circumstances, learned trial Court
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.
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”.
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