IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-34 of 2019
Appellant :
Muhammad Sharif son of Imamuddin
In person
State :
Through Syed Sardar Ali Shah, DPG
Date of
hearing : 20-05-2019.
Date of decision : 20-05-2019.
J U D G M E N T
IRSHAD
ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant appeal has
impugned judgment dated 23-02-2019, passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions
Judge, Sukkur, whereby the private respondents/accused have been acquitted of
the offence for which they were charged.
2. The fact in
brief necessary for disposal of instant Cr. Appeal are that the private
respondents allegedly with rest of the culprits having formed unlawful assembly
in prosecution of their common object caused fists, kicks and hatchet blows to
appellant/complainant with intention to commit his murder and then went away by
making aerial firing to create harassment for that the present case was
registered.
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. The
statements of private respondents/accused were recorded under section 342
Cr.P.C wherein they denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence,
they did not examine themselves on oath or anyone in their defence.
5. On
conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court acquitted private
respondents/accused of the offence for which they were charged, such acquittal
of the private respondents/accused has been impugned by the
appellant/complainant before this Court by way of instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal,
as stated above.
6. It is
contended by the appellant/complainant that learned trial Court has recorded
acquittal of the private respondents/accused without lawful justification on
the basis of improper assessment of evidence. By contending so he sought for
adequate punishment for the private respondents.
7. The D.P.G
for the State by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of
instant Cr. Acquittal Appeal by contending that there is dispute between the
parties over the possession of plot.
8. I have
considered the above arguments and perused the record.
9. The FIR of
the incident has been lodged with the delay of about one day, same has not been
explained plausibly same as such could not be lost sight of. The parties are
already dispute over possession of plot. The very case on investigation was
found to be false and was recommended to be cancelled under false “B” class.
Under these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record their
acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt, such
acquittal is neither appearing to be arbitrary nor cursory to be interfered
with by this Court.
10. In
case of State & ors 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”.
11. In view of
the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is
dismissed accordingly.
JUDGE
Nasim/P.A