JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal.No.S-46 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

03.04.2023

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for appellant/State.

                        Mr.Atta Hussain Qadri, Advocate for private respondent

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is the case of prosecution that private respondent led to recovery of an unlicensed T.T pistol with magazine containing 12 live bullets, allegedly used by him for committing murder of his wife Mst.Naseem, for that he was booked and reported upon.       On conclusion of trial, he was acquitted by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Shikarpur, vide judgment dated 10.11.2020, which is impugned by the appellant/State before this Court by preferring the instant criminal acquittal appeal.     

            It is contended by learned Addl.P.G for the appellant/State that learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondent without appreciating the evidence properly; therefore, his acquittal is liable to be examined by this Court.

            None has come forward to advance arguments on behalf of the private respondent.

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            There is no independent witness to the incident. The place of recovery was not in exclusive possession of the private respondent.      The private respondent has already been acquitted in main murder case and on asking learned Addl.P.G was fair enough to say that such acquittal has not been impugned. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondent by extending him 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