ORDER SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Acquittal Appeal No.S-09 of 2021
(Syed Taufique
Hussain Shah Vs. The State and
others)
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.
For Orders on office objections.
2.
For hearing of main case.
08-03-2023.
Mr.
Dareshani Ali Hyder Ada, advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Imran Mobeen
Khan, APG for the State.
.-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
1. It
is alleged that the private respondent by making trespass into house of
appellant, committed robbery there from, for that they were booked and reported
upon by the police. On conclusion of trial, they were acquitted of the charge by
learned IInd Assistant Sessions Judge Khairpur vide
judgment dated 22-12-2020, 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 Court has recorded acquittal of the private
respondents without considering the evidence brought on record; therefore their
acquittal is liable to be set aside by this Court.
3. Learned APG for the State by supporting
the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of instant Crl.
Acquittal Appeal.
4. Heard arguments and perused the record.
5. The FIR of the incident has been lodged
with delay of about 04 days; such delay having not been explained plausibly
could not be overlooked. Beside FIR, the appellant also made a further
statement which appears to be significant. The 161 Cr.P.C
statements of the PWs were recorded with considerable delay even to FIR. The
parties being related to each other are disputed over matrimonial affairs. Nothing
has been brought on record in shape of any document, which may prove ownership
of the appellant over the robbed articles. 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.
6. 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”.
7.
In view of the facts and reasons
discussed above, the instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal
fails and it is dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
Nasim /PA