IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-24 of 2018

Appellant/Complainant :      Muhammad Sajjan s/o Muhammad Soomar

Through Mr.Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate

State                                :       Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G

Date of hearing               :       09.11.2018          

Date of decision              :       09.11.2018                   

JUDGMENT

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The appellant/complainant by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal has  impugned judgment dated 20.04.2018, passed by learned 1^st Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Dadu, whereby he has acquitted the private respondents of the offence for which they were charged. 

2.                 The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the appellant/complainant after cancellation of his case by police under “C” class filed a direct complaint in respect of theft of his five buffaloes against the private respondents. It was brought on record by learned trial Court after regular enquiry.

3.                The private respondents did not plead guilty to the charge and the appellant/complainant to prove his case examined himself, PWs Liaquat Ali and Muhammad Juman and then closed the side.

4.                The private respondents in their statements recorded u/s.342 Cr.PC denied the allegation of appellant/complainant by pleading innocence. They did not examine themselves on oath in disproof of the prosecution allegation nor led any evidence in their defence.

5.                On evaluation of evidence so produced by the appellant/complainant, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents of the offence for which they were charged by way of impugned judgment.

6.                It is contended by learned counsel of the appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has acquitted the private respondents of the charge without lawful justification. By contending so, he sought for admission of the instant criminal acquittal appeal to its regular hearing for further action against the private respondents.

7.                Learned A.P.G for the State sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by contending that it has been filed by the appellant/complainant without seeking special leave to appeal which is mandatory in terms of section 417 (2) Cr.PC.

8.                I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

9.                Admittedly, no special leave to appeal is sought for by the appellant/complainant prior to filing of instant criminal acquittal appeal, which is necessary in terms of Section 417 (2) Cr.PC without any lawful justification, as the very case was initiated on a direct complaint. Be that as it may, the incident in first instance as per appellant/complainant was reported to police, his FIR was recorded and then was cancelled by police under “C” class, such cancellation of his FIR apparently was not impugned by the appellant/complainant before any forum, which appears to be significant. The filing of complaint of the instant case by the appellant/complainant with delay of about six months to the incident could not be lost sight of. The identity of the private respondents even otherwise at night time is appearing to be weak piece of evidence. The parties being related inter-se are said to be disputed over inheritance of the property. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents of the offence for which they were charged by extending them benefit of doubt by way of impugned judgment.

10.              In case of State and others vs. Abdul Khaliq and others     (PLD 2011 SC-554), it is held by the Hon’ble 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.              Nothing has been brought on record which may suggest that the impugned judgment has been passed by learned trial Court in arbitrary or cursory manner, which may call for interference.  

12.              In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Criminal Acquittal appeal is dismissed.

                                                                                                J U D G E

..