JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal.No.D-08 of 2023.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

Before:

                                                        Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah.

                                                                                           Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi.

01. For orders on M.A.No.1471/2023.

02. For orders on office objection “A”.

03. For orders on M.A.No.1472/2023.

04. For hearing of main case.

05.04.2023

                        Mr. Muhammad Azam Sohu, Advocate for the appellant.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is the case of appellant that his son Asghar Ali was dump and deaf person, was married with Mst.Laila, she went at the house of her parents to make delivery of baby but did not return, his son then was taken by the private respondents to the house of her in-laws to take back his wife and baby and then gone missing; it was in these circumstances, the appellant lodged an FIR with P.S, Sita Road, alleging therein that the private respondents have either caused disappearance of his son or have committed his death. On investigation, the private respondents were challaned and they after due trial were acquitted by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Dadu, vide judgment dated 27.02.2023, which the appellant has impugned 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 brought on record; therefore, their acquittal is to be examined by this Court. 

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about 25 days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked; the private respondents have been involved in commission of the incident only for the reason that they took the son of appellant with them lastly which itself is a weak piece of evidence; the parties are already disputed over the matrimonial affairs. By considering all these factors, learned trial Court is appearing to have recorded acquittal of the private respondents rightly, which is not found 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 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 appeal fails and it is dismissed in limine together with listed applications. JUDGE JUDGE