IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Crl. Acq. Appeal No.S-134 of 2023

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE.

1. For orders on O/objection at flag-A

2. For hearing of bail application.

Date of hearing 31.01.2024

Date of Judgment. 31.01.2024.

Mr. Aftab Ahmed Shar, Addl. Prosecutor General.

********

J U D G M E N T

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J; Through captioned acquittal appeal the appellant “The State through Prosecutor General Sindh” has impugned the judgment dated 22.09.2023 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-I /MCTC, Sukkur in Sessions case No.82/2019 (Re-The State Anwar Mari) culminating from FIR No.82/2019 for offence punishable u/s 13(1)(A) Sindh Arms Act, 2013 whereby the respondent Anwar Mari was acquitted by extending him benefit of the doubt. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, Prosecution has filed captioned Criminal Acquittal Appeal.

2. The details and particulars of the F.I.R. are already available in the memo of Acquittal Appeal and F.I.R., same could be gathered from the copy of F.I.R. attached with the appeal, hence needs not to reproduce the same hereunder.

3. After usual investigation, the case was challaned. By completing legal formalities, the trial Court framed the charge to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in order to prove the case, examined 02 witnesses who all produced certain documents and items in support of evidence. Thereafter, the side of the prosecution was closed.

5. The accused/respondent was examined in terms of Section 342 Cr.PC, wherein he had denied the allegations leveled against him and pleaded his innocence.

6. Trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on assessment of evidence, by judgment dated 22.09.2023, acquitted the accused/respondent as stated above. Hence, this acquittal appeal.

7. Heard and perused.

8. The evidence so produced by the Official witnesses is reassessed and found that the trial Court has correctly identified the contradictions in their evidence and has assigned reasons in the impugned judgment properly, resulting to the acquittal of accused/respondent on that basis which in my view is a correct assessment of the trial Court which cannot be interfered by this Court in view of the above settled principle of the Apex Court. Apart from above, the instant case is outcome of main Crime No.81 of 2019 for an offence under Section 302, 504 PPC registered with Police Station, Padidan in which appellant has been acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 22.09.2023. Copy of CFM is also placed on record. It is observed that the presumption of innocence applies doubly upon acquittal, and that such a finding is not to be disturbed unless there is some discernible perversity in the determination of the trial Court that can be said to have caused miscarriage of justice. The 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, the factual conclusion could possibly be arrived at, the factual conclusion should not upset, except when palpably perverse, suffering from serious and material factual infirmities as has been held by the Supreme Court in case of State v. Abdul Khalique (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 554).

9. Accordingly, acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of respondent/accused named above in impugned judgment dated 22.09.2023, is maintained. As such, the appeal against acquittal being without merits is dismissed.

J U D G E

Ihsan/*