ORDER SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Acquittal Appeal No.S-18 of 2023
(Syed
Amir Hussain Shah Vs. Muhammad Ramzan & others)
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.
For Orders on MA No. 1016/2023. (U/A)
2.
For Orders on office objection.
3.
For Orders on MA No. 1017/2023. (Ex./A)
4.
For hearing of main case.
20-02-2023.
Mr. Khadim
Hussain, advocate for appellant.
.-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
1. Application for urgent hearing is allowed.
2. Deferred.
3. Deferred.
4. It is alleged that private respondents
with rest of the culprits after having an unlawful assembly in prosecution of
their common object, maltreated the appellant and then went away by insulting
and threatening him of murder, for that the present case was registered. On
conclusion of trial, they were acquitted by learned Ist Civil Judge &
Judicial Magistrate, Rohri vide judgment dated 16-01-2023, 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.
Heard arguments and perused the
record.
The FIR of the incident has been
lodged with delay of about 02 days; such delay having not been explained
plausibly could not be over looked; it was for bailable offence excepting one
u/s 506/2 PPC, applicability whereof was doubtful. The parties admittedly are
disputed over construction work of graveyard. In these circumstances, learned
trial Magistrate 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 in limini.
JUDGE
Nasim /PA