ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 210 of 2021

(Muhammad Raju vs. Yaseen and another)

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For hearing of main case

2. For hearing of M.A.No. 3941/2021

20.06.2023

Mr. Shiraz Ahmed Bhatti advocate for the appellant

Mr. Abrar Ali Khichi, Addl. P.G for the state

---------------------------------------

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged by the appellant that the private respondent pushed down her wife Mst. Shahista on ground, torn her clothes and then ran away by committing criminal intimidation and hitting him with some object. By maintaining such allegations, he lodged FIR of the above said incident against the private respondent, who on conclusion of trial was acquitted by learned II-Judicial Magistrate/MTM Malir Karachi vide judgment dated 08.03.2021, which he has impugned before this Court by preferring the instant Acquittal Appeal.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondent on the basis of misappraisal of evidence; therefore, such acquittal is to be examined by this court.

3. Learned Addl. P.G for the state by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of instant Acquittal Appeal by contending that the acquittal of the private respondent is well reasoned.

3. Heard arguments and perused the record.

4. The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of more than 02 months; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not overlooked. As per impugned judgment no Mohallah people is examined; there is no recovery of object allegedly used in commission of incident; the parties were disputed over tenancy. In these circumstances, learned trial court was right to record the acquittal of the private respondent by extending them benefit of doubt, such acquittal is not found 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 above, the instant Acquittal Appeal fails, it is dismissed along with listed application.

JUDGE