IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Acq. Appeal No. S-97 of 2021

1. For orders on office objection at flag `A`

2. For orders on MA No.4941/2021

3. For hearing of main case

Date of hearing: 29.10.2021

Dated of decision: 29.10.2021

Mr. Khalid Hussain Soomro, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, Deputy Prosecutor General

O R D E R

Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, J. – Instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 31.07.2021, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II (MCTC) Pano Aqil, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents No.1 to 4/accused of the charge.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has contended that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, unlawful and against the principle of justice; that this is the case of complete misreading and non-reading of evidence; that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the version of the complainant supported by other witnesses; that the complainant has fully proved his case against the accused. He prayed for converting acquittal of the respondents into conviction.

3. Learned DPG supported the impugned judgment and has contended that there appears no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and the trial court has rightly acquitted the respndents.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant, learned DPG and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of record shows that appellant has miserably failed to establish extra ordinary reasons and circumstances, whereby the acquittal judgment recorded by the trial court may be interfered with by this court. It appears that the complainant and witnesses have failed to prove allegation against the accused/respondent by producing sound and cogent evidence.

6. It is not out of context to make here necessary clarification that an appeal against acquittal has distinctive features and the approach to deal with; the appeal against conviction is distinguishable from the appeal against the acquittal because presumption of double innocence is attached in the latter case. Order of acquittal can only be interfered with, if it is found on its face to be capricious, perverse, and arbitrary in nature or based on misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or is artificial, arbitrary and lead to gross miscarriage of justice. Mere disregard of technicalities in a criminal trial without resulting injustice is not enough for interference. Suffice is to say that an order/judgment of acquittal gives rise to strong presumption of innocence rather double presumption of innocence is attached to such an order. While examining the facts in the order of acquittal, substantial weight should be given to the findings of the lower Courts, whereby accused were exonerated from the commission of crime as held by the Apex Court in the case of Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad v. Fahim Afzal (1998 SCMR 1281) and Jehangir v. Amanullah and others (2010 SCMR 491). It is settled principle of law as held in the plethora of case law that acquittal would be unquestionable when it could not be said that acquittal was either perverse or that acquittal judgment was improper or incorrect as it is settled that whenever there is doubt about guilt of accused, its benefit must go to him and Court would never come to the rescue of prosecution to fill-up the lacuna appearing in evidence of prosecution case as it would be against established principles of dispensation of criminal justice.

7. There is hardly any improbability or infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial court, which being based on sound and cogent reasons does not warrant any interference by this Court and is accordingly maintained and the instant appeal is dismissed along with pending application.

JUDGE

Suleman Khan/PA