IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Criminal Acq. Appeal No.S-01 of 2023
Appellant/Complainant: Sanaullah son of Sher Dil Khan Zangejo
Through Mr. Mazhar Ali Bhutto, Advocate
Date of hearing: 18.04.2023
Date of decision: 18.04.2023
----------
JUDGMENT
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J.:- This acquittal appeal is directed against Judgment dated 03.12.2022, passed by learned I-Judicial Magistrate, Ratodero in Criminal Case No.04/2021 (Re. The State v/s. Shoukat Ali and four others) emanating from F.I.R No.154/2020 for offence punishable under sections 337-A(i), 337-F(i)(v), H(ii), 147, 148, 149 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Ratodero, whereby he had acquitted the accused/respondents of charge by extending them benefit of doubt.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of instant acquittal appeal as per prosecution story are that appellant/complainant lodged F.I.R on 06.12.2020, alleging therein that on 23.11.2020 he alongwith his father and neighbor Mashooq Ali were on the way to their village from Larkana when at about 1700 hours they reached at Chajra road near sim, they saw accused persons armed with lathis and pistol respectively standing in the way of complainant and on stopping motorcycle they attacked upon them with lathi blows to the complainant and his father who received certain injuries and the accused ran away by making aerial firing. Hence instant F.I.R.
3. After completing trial and hearing learned counsel for the respective parties, the trial Court acquitted the accused by extending them benefit of doubt vide impugned judgment. Hence, this acquittal appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in its prospective manner and contradictions so pointed out in the impugned judgment are not of such standard to acquit the accused. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence according to principles of evaluating the evidence in criminal cases and has erroneously extended benefit of doubt in favour of accused/respondents. He further contended that the prosecution had proved its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt and the acquittal of the accused/respondents has caused miscarriage of justice. He lastly contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court may be set-aside and instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal may be allowed.
6. I have perused the impugned judgment and other material available on the record. The learned Trial Court has properly commented on all aspects of the case and has rightly come to a conclusion that the prosecution could not establish the case against the respondents/accused beyond shadow of doubt for which following reasons are given in the impugned judgment:
“From the perusal of FIR, it appears that alleged incident was reported to police station with inordinate delay of three days, for which no any plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution. Further, the complainant in his FIR stated that accused Shoukat caused him lathi blow, whereas at the time of evidence, no any specific role was assigned to accused Shoukat by the complainant in his examination-in-chief.
Further, the complainant in his FIR stated that after receiving the injuries, he was brought to police station with the help of his witnesses namely Sher Dil and Mashooq Ali. Whereas PW.02, Sher Dil in his examination-in-chief deposed that after receiving the injuries, Sanaullah and Mashooq took him to police station. Considering both the depositions a question arises that who took whom to police station. As both the depositions are contra to each other.
Further, the complainant in his FIR stated that after he was referred to CMCH Larkana from Taluka Hospital Ratodero but the MLO at the time of evidence remained mum in this regard. During the cross examination the complainant deposed that he went to Larkana Hospital on Government Vehicle, whereas the father of complainant who is also the inured, deposed in his cross examination that they went to Larkana Hospital on private vehicle from Ratodero Hospital. Complainant in his cross examination deposed that he along with his father, Ayaz and Abdul Nabi went to Larkana, whereas by contradicting the version of complainant, PW.02 Sher Dil in his cross examination deposed that he, complainant, Shahid and Haji went to Larkana. Complainant also admitted the existence of enmity between him and accused persons, with admission that accused Mukhtiar had lodge the FIR against him and his father before this incident.
Apart from other factors of the case, the PW.06 MLO during his cross examination admitted that he has not produced the X-Rays and radiologist reports before the court. He further admitted that the time of examination of both the inured in the medical certificate are same. He also admitted that injuries of injured can be received by accident by falling from motorcycle.”
7. It is well settled by now that the scope of appeal against acquittal is very narrow and there is a double presumption of innocence and that the Courts generally do not interfere with the same unless they find the reasoning in the impugned judgment to be perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous as was held by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of State Versus Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC-554), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
From the ratio of all the above pronouncements and those cited by the learned counsel for the parties, it can be deduced 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. It has been categorically held in a plethora of judgments that 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. Moreover, in number of dictums of this Court, it has been categorically laid down that such judgment should not be interjected until the findings are perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous (Emphasis supplied). The Court of appeal should not interfere simply for the reason that on the re-appraisal 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. It is averred in The State v. Muhammad Sharif (1995 SCMR 635) and Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad v. Raja Fahim Afzal and 2 others (1998 SCMR 1281) that the Supreme Court being the final forum would be chary and hesitant to interfere in the findings of the Courts below. It is, therefore, expedient and imperative that the above criteria and the guidelines should be followed in deciding these appeals.
8. In view of the foregoing, it reveals that the impugned judgment is well founded and well-reasoned, based on proper appraisal of the evidence thus it calls for no interference by this Court. Even otherwise, it is re-iterated that the acquittal recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction, would not be disturbed until and unless misreading or non-reading of the evidence resulting into miscarriage of justice is found, which has not been noticed. Consequently, there seems to be no substance in the present acquittal appeal, it is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Manzoor