JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl.Acquittal.Appeal.No.S-93 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

 

01. For orders on office objection “A”

02. For orders on M.A.No.5087/2021 (E/A)

03. For hearing of main case.

 

08.11.2021

 

                        Mr. Muhammad Ashique Dhamrah, Advocate for appellant/complainant.

 

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- Facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the private respondents allegedly after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, by committing trespass into house of appellant/complainant Yasir Ali Shah, caused him and his witnesses lathi blows and then went away by making aerial firing to create harassment and insulting him and his witnesses, for that they were booked and reported upon.

                        After due trial, the private respondents were acquitted by learned 5th Judicial Magistrate/MTMC Shikarpur, vide judgment dated 01.09.2021, which is impugned by the appellant/complainant before this Court by preferring the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the private respondents beyond shadow of doubt, by leading reliable evidence which has not been believed by learned trial Magistrate, without assigning cogent reasons, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be examined by this Court.

                        I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged by the appellant/complainant with delay of about two days and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked, it is reflecting consultation and deliberation. The parties admittedly are disputed over landed property. The ocular evidence as per impugned judgment is in conflict with medical evidence. 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.

            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”.

 

                        In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine, together with listed application.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             J U D G E