IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl.
Acquittal Appeal No. S- 108 of 2016
Present:
Mr.
Justice Amjad Ali Sahito
Appellant: Muhammad
Ismail son of Muhammad Hassan by cast Chandio
Respondents 1)
Abdul Rasheed son of Muhammad Hassan
2)
Muhammad Siddiq son of Muhammad Hassan
3) Kaloo
son of Muhammad Ibrahim Chandio
4) The
State through Abdul Rehman Kolachi, DPG.
Private
respondents present in person.
Date of hearing: 07-09-2018
Date of Judgment:
07-09-2018
J U D G M E N T
AMJAD ALI
SAHITO, J., Appellant/complainant Muhammad Ismail has challenged the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2016,
passed by learned 2nd Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Kotdiji,
whereby private respondents/accused were acquitted of the charge.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are
that on 06.06.2013, complainant along with his son went on their land, it was about
1200 hours, private respondents namely Abdul Rehman armed with TT pistol, Muhammad
Siddique armed with gun, Kaloo armed with pistol, came on the land of
complainant and on arrival, started de-rooting the trees. On the cries of
complainant party and on the voice of firing, Muhammad Hassan along with other
co-villagers came there. On seeing them all the accused went to their houses by
issuing murderous threats. Thereafter complainant appeared at police station
and lodged FIR on 23.06.2013 at 0900 hours.
3. The learned trial court after framing of
charge, recording evidence of prosecution witnesses and hearing the parties
vide impugned judgment acquitted the private respondents named above.
4. Learned counsel appearing for
appellant/complainant argued that there was sufficient evidence connecting the
private respondents with the commission of offence, but the learned trial court
illegally acquitted them of the charge; that respondents failed to create any
dent in the prosecution case but even then the trial court illegally,
unlawfully and without any justifiable reason acquitted them of the charge and
while acquitting the respondents, the trial court failed to record any cogent
reason.
5. On the other hand, learned DPG supported
the impugned judgment and argued that sufficient material was available on
record creating reasonable shadow of doubt and by giving them such benefit,
respondents have been rightly acquitted by the trial court. Private respondent present in
person also supported the impugned judgment.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced
by learned counsel for appellant, learned DPG as well as above named private respondent/accused
in person so also perused the record of case. Admittedly, the there are glaring
contradictions in the depositions of complainant and eye witness Muhammad Ali,
which has been discussed by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment,
such as complainant in his chief examination has stated that accused Muhammad
Siddiqu was armed with gun, whereas the Muhammad Ali who was eye witness of the
incident has stated taht accused Muhammad Siddiq was armed with pistol.
Complainant during his cross examination has stated that IO came at the place
of incident on Mehran car, while the IO Abdul Rasheed Shar in his statement has
stated he went to inspect the place of incident o Alto car. Furthermore, PW
Muhammad Ali during his cross examination admitted that there is landed dispute
between complainant and his mother.
7. The
upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove
guilt of the respondents, as such the trial Court had no option, but to acquit
the private respondents named above. The trial court after proper appraisal of
material available on record and attending all the legal as well as factual
aspects of the case passed a very exhaustive and well-reasoned judgment. There appears
no illegality or irregularity, misreading and non-reading in the judgment
impugned warranting interference by this court.
8. It is also well-settled principle of law
that there should not be series of dents and doubts in the prosecution case,
but if a single doubt is created even then the defence is entitled to the
benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of
right. It is also established law that after gaining acquittal a double
presumption of innocence was earned by the private respondents and the superior
courts have always been reluctant to set aside findings of acquittal unless it
is proved that the findings arrived at by the trial court while acquitting the
accused are based on misreading, non-reading of evidence or the acquittal is
perverse, shocking, artificial and ridiculous. Since the instant acquittal
appeal was not admitted for regular hearing and the appellant/complainant
failed to disclose the misreading and non-reading of evidence, hence he failed
to make out the case for regular hearing.
9. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the
considered opinion that the prosecution failed to bring home the charge against
the respondents beyond reasonable doubt, thus the trial court has rightly
acquitted the respondents of the charge. No case for interference in the
impugned judgment is made out, therefore, the instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal No.
S-108 of 2016 being meritless is dismissed.
JUDGE
Sajjad