IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT
SUKKUR
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. S – 79 of 2018
Appellant/Complainant : Riaz Ahmed Siyal,
through
Mr. Illahi Bux Jamali
Advocate
Private respondents: None
present
The State, through Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, Deputy Prosecutor General
Date of hearing : 29.04.2019
Date of decision
: 29.04.2019
JUDGMENT
IRSHAD ALI
SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant
Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 24.4.2018, passed by
learned 3rd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate kandiaro, whereby he
has acquitted the private respondents of the charge.
2. The
facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are
that the private respondents allegedly committed theft of Solar Plates from a
Primary School at village Syed Ibrahim Shah, for that they were booked and
reported upon by the police.
3. At trial, the private respondents did
not plead guilty to the charge and prosecution to prove it, examined
appellant/complainant and his witnesses and then closed the side.
4. On evaluation of evidence so produced
by the prosecution, learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents of
the charge as stated above.
5. It
is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that learned trial
Court has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without lawful
justification and on the basis of improper assessment of the evidence. By
contending so, he sought for adequate action against the private respondents.
6. Learned DPG for the State by
supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal
Acquittal Appeal by contending that it is well-reasoned.
7. I
have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
8. The
FIR of the incident has been lodged with unexplained delay of 45 days, same
could not be overlooked, as apparently is reflecting consultation and
deliberation. None indeed has seen the private respondents committing the alleged
theft they have been involved in this case by the appellant/complainant only
for the reason that the footprints marks when tracked of the thieves led to
their houses and they in private faisla were found to be guilty, which appears
to be significant. There is no recovery of any sort from the private
respondents. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record
acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt, which
is not calling for any interference by this Court.
9. In
case of State and others vs. Abdul
Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC-554), it has been held 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”.
10. In
view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Criminal Acquittal
Appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Judge
ARBROHI