JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.D-36 of 2020.

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                                       ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

For hearing of main case.

22.02.2022

                        Mr. Naushad Ali Taggar, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razzak Soomro, Advocate for private respondent.

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State.

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.-The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the private respondent, allegedly with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object, committed murder of Ahmed Khan, by causing him fire shot injuries and then went away by making fires at the appellant and his witnesses with intention to commit their murder too, for that the present case was registered. On due trial, the private respondent was acquitted by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Qamber, vide judgment dated 16.09.2020, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

2.                     It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondent without lawful justification, which is calling for interference by this Court by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal.

3.                     Learned Addl.P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned judgment have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by contending that he on investigation was found to be innocent by the police and the material witnesses to the incident by filing their affidavits have exonerated him with commission of the incident.

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

5.                     The role attributed to the private respondent in commission of the incident is only the extent of making ineffective fires at the appellant and his witnesses and he on investigation was found to be innocent by the police. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondent by way of impugned judgment, which is not found to be arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.

6.                     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”.

7.                     In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly. JUDGE

                                                                                      JUDGE