JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Criminal Acquittal Appeal.No.S-43 of 2021
(Shahid Ahmed Vs. Shakeel Ahmed and another).
_________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
_________________________________________________________________
For hearing of main case.
08.05.2023
Mr. Shakeel Ahmed G.Ansari, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr.Azhar Hussain Abbasi, Advocate for private respondents.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.
= * = * = * = * = * =
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the private respondents with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention by practicing fraud and cheating, were found selling the substandard construction material under deception that it is prepared/manufactured by the company of the appellant, for that they were booked and reported upon by the police. On conclusion of trial, they were acquitted by learned 4th Judicial Magistrate, Shikarpur, vide judgment dated 12.03.2021, 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 Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without appreciating the evidence properly; therefore, their acquittal is liable to be examined by this Court.
Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by supporting the impugned judgment.
Heard arguments and perused the record.
The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than one month; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked; it is reflecting consultation and deliberation; the private respondents it is alleged to have confessed their guilt before the appellant and others and it was recorded. No forensic report of such recording has been produced. 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 arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.
In case of State & others Vs. Abdul Khaliq & 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 accordingly. JUDGE