JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.D-10 of 2021
Before;
Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
Appellant: Mst. Shahnaz w/o
Allah Wadhayo bycaste Massan, R/O Patni, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur.
Through Mr. Alam Sher Bozdar, advocate.
The Respondents: 1. Mst. Gul Bano w/o Shah Bux
Massan.
2. Sajida @ Shazia @ Shah Jehan d/o Haji Mirbahar.
3. Aftab
Hussain s/o Ghulam Muhammad Korai.
4. Muhammad
Siddique s/o Mitho Shar.
5. Sadaruddin s/o Ali
Muhammad Samejo.
6. Saindad s/o Ameer
Bux Chachar.
7. Sanaullah s/o Umed
Ali Mirani.
8.
Abdul Razzak s/o Muhammad Bux Soomro.
9.
Wahid Bux s/o Sadoro Chachar.
10.Dilshad
s/o Muhammad Ali @ Jago.
The State Through Mr. Zulfiquar
Ali Jatoi, Additional Prosecutor General.
Date of Hearing: 08-02-2023
Date of Judgment: 08-02-2023
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. It is the
case of the appellant that her son Mushtaque Ali was abducted and then was done
to death in a fake police encounter by the private respondents in prosecution
of their common object, for that the present case was registered. On conclusion
of trial, they were acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge Pano Aqil vide
Judgment dated 15-02-2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court
by way of instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal.
2. It
is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the private respondents
have been acquitted by learned trial Court on the basis of misappraisal of
evidence. By contending so he sought for setting aside of their acquittal with
adequate punishment to them, which is opposed by learned APG for the State by supporting
the impugned judgment by contending that it is well reasoned.
3. Heard arguments and perused the record.
4. The appellant is not an eyewitness to actual death of the
deceased. The FIR of the incident has been lodged by the appellant with delay
of more than two months that too after having a recourse u/s 22A & B Cr.P.C,
such delay could not be overlooked. The evidence of the appellant and her
witnesses is inconsistent and contradictory. 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.
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
accordingly.
J U D G E
J
U D G E
Nasim/P.A