ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD

Cr.Acq.Appeal.No.S-  20  of 2010

DATE                                     ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

            For Katcha Peshi.

29.11.2010

Mr. Qurban Ali Bhutto, Advocate for appellant.

Mr. Muhammad Ali Rindh, Advocate for private Respondents.

Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G for the State.

                                    =

Through this Criminal Acquittal Appeal, Appellant has impugned the judgment dated 15.12.2009 passed by Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate-I, Hala in Case No.18/2009 whereby he acquitted the Respondents by extending them benefit of doubt.

Per learned counsel for appellant, the impugned judgment is a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The prosecution has proved its case through confidence inspiring evidence but same has not been taken into consideration. It is further contended that medical evidence also corroborates the ocular version therefore, impugned judgment is liable to set aside.

On the other hand, learned D.P.G for the State and learned counsel for private Respondents supported the impugned judgment on the ground that there is inconsistency between ocular version and medical evidence and on this score alone, the accused were entitled to be acquitted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The contents of the prosecution case in nutshell are that on 11.1.2009 Respondents duly armed with lathies and hatchets inflicted hatchet and lathi injuries as well as caused kicks and fists blows to the appellant. However, upon perusal of deposition of Medical Officer, it appears that he found one injury on the person of appellant. However, in cross examination, Dr. Muhammad Hassan while replying to a suggestion stated as under:-

“The injury might be sustained if a person falls on the ground or any other hard blunt substance.”

Even upon perusal of deposition of appellant Abdul Rasheed, it appears that he admitted that in FIR it is not shown as to which of the Respondents gave him beating. It is also well settled principle of law that after acquittal presumption of double innocence is attached with acquittal order and same cannot be interfered unless the conclusion arrived by the trial Court is arbitrary, lacks the reasons or against the evidence available on record. After going through the impugned judgment, I do not find any illegality or infirmity therefore, I am of the considered view that impugned judgment warrants no interference. Consequently Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-20 of 2010 is dismissed.  

JUDGE

Tufail