JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl.Acquittal.Appeal.No.S-91 of 2021.
_________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
_________________________________________________________________
For hearing of main case.
20.10.2021
Appellant Shahid Hussain Kourejo in person.
Mrs. Tahira Parveen, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl. Prosecutor General for the State.
= * = * = * = * = * =
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged by the appellant that he paid good amount of money to the private respondents for purchasing buffaloes for him, which they misappropriated, thereby, they committed fraud and cheating with him and then threatened him to be killed when he went to them to abide by their promise. On the basis of such allegation, he filed a direct complaint, it was brought on record and after due trial the private respondents were acquitted by learned 2nd Civil Judge & J.M, Qamber, vide judgment dated 30.08.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant criminal acquittal appeal.
2. Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 by supporting the impugned judgment have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by contending that the appellant is in habit to involve innocent persons in false cases of and on.
3. I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
4. The direct complaint was filed with considerable delay and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. No receipt is produced by the appellant, which may suggest that he actually made payment to the private respondents for purchasing buffaloes from them. The allegation of criminal intimidation is vague in its nature. In these circumstances, learned trial Magistrate was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by way of impugned judgment and such acquittal is not found to be arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.
5. In case of State and others vs. Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC-554), it has been observed 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”.
6. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed. J U D G E