ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 468 of 2021

(Sohaib vs. Saleem and another)

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For orders on M.A.No. 9177/2021

2. For orders on office objection and reply as at flag A

3. For orders on M.A.No. 9178/2021

4. For hearing of main case

20.06.2023

Mr. Muhammad Akif Sheikh, advocate for the appellant

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

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant filed a direct complaint against the private respondents for their prosecution for having committed offence punishable under Sections 337, 324 and 34 PPC, it was brought on record and then on conclusion of trial, they were acquitted by learned IX-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South vide judgment dated 17.07.2021, which is impugned by the appellant 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 respondents without lawful justification; therefore, such acquittal is to be examined by this court.

3. Heard arguments and perused the record.

4. It was the direct complaint which was filed with considerable delay to the incident; the allegation made by the appellant as per impugned judgment was not able to prove by examining any witness other than himself. In these circumstances, learned trial court was right to record the 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.

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 in limine along with listed applications.

JUDGE