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