JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal.No.S-21 of 2023.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on M.A.No.1395/2023.

02. For orders on office objection “A”.

03. For orders on M.A.No.1396/2023.

04. For orders on M.A.No.1397/2023.

05. For hearing of main case.

27.03.2023

                        Mr. Mehboob Ali Doongah, Advocate for the appellant.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged by the appellant that the private respondents after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, not only threatened him of murder but committed theft of 20 mounds of wheat, for that he filed a direct complaint for their prosecution for the said offence, it was brought on record and after due trial, they were acquitted by learned 2^nd Judicial Magistrate, Mehar, vide judgment dated 27.02.2023, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

            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 the evidence; therefore, their acquittal is to be examined by this Court. 

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            The parties are disputed over the landed property; the direct complaint was filed with considerable delay; as per impugned judgment there is contradictory evidence. By considering all these factors, learned trial Magistrate is appearing to have recorded acquittal of the private respondents rightly, which is not found 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 observed 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 criminal acquittal fails and it is dismissed in limine together with listed applications. JUDGE