IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Acquittal Appeal No.S-02 of 2023

Appellant/Complainant	:	Faiz-un-Nabi s/o Abdul Razzaque Shaikh, through Mr.Suhendar Kumar Gemnani, Advocate.
Date of hearing	:	17.03.2023
Date of decision	:	17.03.2023
		JUDGMENT

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J ;- The listed Criminal Acquittal Appeal filed by appellant impugns the judgment dated 06.12.2022, passed by learned Consumer Protection Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Larkana, in Crl.Case No.24 of 2022 (Re. St. Vs. Gulzar Ali Laghari), outcome of FIR Crime No.01/2022, for offence punishable U/S.506/2, 504, 34 PPC, registered with Police Station, Taluka, whereby respondent/accused Gulzar Ali Laghari was acquitted.

2.     The facts of the case are already mentioned in memo of Criminal Acquittal Appeal as well as FIR, hence the same need not to be repeated.

3.     At trial, the prosecution examined in all four witnesses who produced certain relevant documents in support of their statements. Thereafter, the learned State Counsel closed its side.

4.     The private respondent/accused in his statement recorded in terms of Section 342 Cr.PC denied the allegations leveled against him by pleading his innocence. However, he neither examined himself on oath nor led any evidence in his defence. 

5.     The learned trial Court after hearing the counsels for the parties and evaluation of the evidence, acquitted the private respondent/accused by way of impugned judgment, as discussed above.

6.     Per learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that learned trial Court has passed the judgment in violation of law and there was sufficient material available on record to convict the private respondent/accused but learned trial Court acquitted him on flimsy grounds; that the evidence of complainant was corroborated by his witnesses and no major contradiction was noticed in their evidence; that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is not based on sound reasoning. Lastly, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and allowing of the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

7.     Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material made available on the record with their able assistance.

8.         The careful re-appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution is entailing that all the witnesses have tried to support the case but their evidence when scanned carefully was found coupled with material infirmities. In that the complainant disclosed in his FIR that accused persons robbed his all documents of plot and extended threats for dire consequences but neither the complainant nor the PWs uttered even a single word in their deposition that accused persons snatched documents of plot. Moreover, the real dispute between parties is on plot but from the perusal of examination-in-chief of complainant, it papers that neither complainant disclosed the accurate time of occurrence nor he disclosed the place of occurrence which shows clear doubt about occurrence whether it took place or not. Complainant further disclosed in his FIR that occurrence took place at 06.00 P.M but he in his cross examination stated that the occurrence took place at 05.45 P.M. Complainant further stated in his cross examination that he reached at police station for redressal of his grievance at 07.45 P.M but PW Wakeel Ali who is eye witness of the occurrence stated in his cross examination that he visited police station at 06.00 P.M. All these improbabilities in the case have demolished the entire case and rendered it highly doubtful. Thus, without going into other contradictions in the case, it can safely be concluded that learned trial Court has rightly recorded acquittal of the private respondents.

9.        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.

10.        The sequel of above discussion is that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality or irregularity while recording acquittal of the private respondent/accused by way of impugned judgment, which even otherwise does not call for any interference by this Court by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the same being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine together with listed application.

                                JUDGE

        .