JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal.No.S-97 of 2021.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

01. For orders on M.A.No.151/2022 (U/A).

02. For orders on office objection “A”.

03. For orders on M.A.No.5167/2021 (E/A).

04. For hearing of main case.

17.01.2022

                        Mr. Faiz Muhammad Shaikh, Advocate for the appellant.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is alleged that the appellant was maltreated by the private respondents, for that a case was registered against them and they after due trial were acquitted by learned trial Magistrate; such acquittal, the appellant has impugned before this Court.

                        It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Magistrate has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without lawful justification; therefore, it needs to be examined by this Court after issuance of notice to other side.

                        Heard and perused the record.

                        The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about five days; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked, it is reflecting consultation and deliberation. The parties admittedly are already disputed over the matrimonial affairs and in these circumstances, learned trial Magistrate was right to record acquittal of the private respondents, which 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 above, the instant criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed in limine together with listed applications. JUDGE