IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.D-02 of 2020

Before:

Mr.Justice Khadim Hussain M.Shaikh

Mr.Justice Irshad Ali Shah

Appellant/complainant : Tameer Hussain s/o Muhammad Soomar Mugheri

Through Mr.Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate

The State : Through Mr.Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G.

Date of hearing : 19.05.2020

Date of decision : 19.05.2020.

J U D G M E N T

Irshad Ali Shah-J; The appellant/complainant by means of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has impugned judgment dated 17.12.2019, rendered by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Qamber, whereby the private respondents have been acquitted of the offence for which they were charged.

2. It is alleged that the private respondents with rest of the culprits, in furtherance of their common intention, caused hatchet injury to Muhammad Mithal on his head, with intention to commit his murder, who died of such injury later-on, 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 the prosecution to prove it, examined in all nine witnesses including appellant/complainant and then closed its side.

4. The private respondents in their statements recorded u/s.342 Cr.PC denied the prosecution allegations by pleading innocence; they did not examine anyone in their defense or themselves on oath.

5. On evaluation of evidence so produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the private respondents of the charge by way of impugned judgment.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for appellant/complainant that the learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents on the basis of improper assessment of the evidence; otherwise the prosecution has been able to prove its case against them beyond shadow of doubt by way of cogent evidence. By contending so, he sought for adequate action against the private respondents.

7. Learned D.P.G for the State by supporting the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of the instant Crl.Acquittal Appeal.

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

9. The FIR of the incident has been lodged on 4^th day of the incident, such delay having not been explained plausibly, could not be overlooked as it is reflecting consultation and deliberation. As per appellant/complainant and PW Fakir Muhammad, deceased Muhammad Mithal was done to death by way of causing him hatchet injury, they in that respect are belied by Medical Officer Dr.Abdul Sattar, as per him, the deceased died of head injury, caused to him with some hard blunt substance, which may be result of his fall on the ground as road accident. The death of the deceased on account of road accident could hardly be given cover of murder. The parties are already disputed over issue of kids fight. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by making following observation;

“Judicious scanning and appraisal of evidence makes it easier to understand for a prudent mind that ocular account has been negated by medical account and no reliable circumstantial evidence including collection of blood stained earth and crime empty has been brought on record to prove the truth of charge against the present accused because it is a well settled principle of administration of criminal justice that quality of evidence decides fate of a criminal trial and in murder case evidence of high quality and impeachable character is needed to base a conviction and sentence and benefit of every reasonable doubt is to be extended to the accused as a matter of grace. As regards case in hand it has also come on record that Muhammad Mithal Mugheri (now deceased) was admitted in the hospital as a Road Traffic accident case and per the learned doctor his death occurred due to a single head injury caused by a hard & blunt substance which may be by falling down on the ground such as a Road accident, hence case has become doubtful entitling the both present accused to acquittal as per law”.

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 justify making interference with it by this Court.

12. In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Crl.Acquittal Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

J U D G E