THE HIGH COURT
OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.S-142of 2019
Mr.Muhammad
Iqbal Memon, advocate for the appellant.
Mr.
Muhammad Ayaz Shaikh, Advocate for respondents.
Mr.
Imran Mobeen Khan, Assistant Prosecutor General.
Date
of hearing 25.04.2022
J U D G M E N T
ARSHAD
HUSSAIN KHAN, J- Through instant Criminal
Acquittal Appeal, the appellant/complainant has assailed the judgment dated 26-07-2019,
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Bhirya City, in Crl. Case No.230
of 2018, arisen out of F.I.R. No.24/2016, registered under Sections 452, 506/2,
337H(ii), 504, 427, 114, 147, 148, 149 P.P.C.at P.S. Bhirya City, whereby the respondents
Nos. 3 to 5 were acquitted of the charge by extending them the benefit of
doubt.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the
appellant/complainant had entered into a contract of his guava orchard with
Ahsan Ali Memon and prior to this contract the said orchard was given to
respondent Ghulam Fareed to which he got annoyed. On 24-03-2016 at 09:00 a.m the appellant/complainant himself, his brothers Irfan, Nadeem and other family
members were available in the house; accused persons including said Ghulam Fareed
with weapons entered into the house beaten complainant party, abused them and
made aerial firing in order to create harassment. On fire shots relatives of
complainant party came there who rescued them. Accused persons went away while extending
threats of murder that if the complainant did not withdraw the contract of his
orchard he will face consequences. Thereafter complainant appeared at Police
Station and lodged such FIR.
3. After
usual investigation, police submitted the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C
(challan). The accused was charged formally, to which they pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
4. During
trial respondent No. 2-Ghulam Fareed expired and proceedings against him were
abated on 12.09.2018.
5. At the trial, Prosecution in order to
substantiate the charge against the respondents/accused examined as many as five
witnesses, who produced relevant documents in their depositions. Thereafter, the statements of accused were
recorded, wherein they denied the allegations leveled against them. They
neither examined themselves on oath nor produced any witness in their defense. On
the assessment of the evidence on record, learned trial court acquitted the
accused persons under section 245(i),
Cr.P.C, vide impugned judgment. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has
preferred this Criminal Acquittal Appeal.
6. Heard the learned
counsel for appellant, respondents and learned Assistant Prosecutor General and
perused the material available on the record.
7. Learned counsel for appellant has mainly contended that learned
trial court while passing the impugned judgment has failed to comply with the
directions of learned this court as well as lower appellate court in letter and
spirit as the examination-in-chief of the
complainant and his witnesses have not been re-recorded they were only put to cross-examination,
as such committed grave illegality. It is contended that trial court initially convicted
the accused persons and thereafter the accused persons filed the appeal before
learned Sessions Judge, Naushehro Feroze, whereby the learned Sessions Judge
remanded the case with specific directions for framing the charge afresh, determine
the age of accused Mehboob. After remand of the case, learned trial court
without compliance with the directions only got the medical certificate of
accused Mehboob and acquitted the accused; that the appellant challenged the
said judgment before this Court in Acquittal Appeal No.S-83/2017, which was
remanded by this Court and after full-dressed trial, the accused was acquitted
on 26.07.2019; that learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of the
P.Ws. who have fully implicated the respondents with the commission of alleged
offence; that the role of accused/respondents is clear from the contents of
FIR, ocular evidence is very clear that the accused have committed the alleged
offence; that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is without
applying its judicious mind and has not appreciated material available on the
record; that the evidence produced by the appellant before the learned trial court
was enough to connect the respondents No.3 to 5 with commission of offence
whereas learned trial court did not consider the same for the conviction of
respondents and it is fit case for conviction but learned trial court has
failed to consider the same, which is sheer injustice with the appellant.
8. Learned counsel for respondents
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that complainant has falsely
involved theaccused/respondents in the commission of alleged offence due to
enmity over contract of guava garden. He has submitted that learned trial court
has rightly acquitted them, therefore, instant Crl. Acquittal appeal is liable
to be dismissed.
9. Learned
Assistant Prosecutor General has also supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted
that the complainants/appellant has failed to prove the home guilt against
accused persons as his witnesses have not corroborated his version as mentioned
in the complaint/FIR. He contends that evidence of the complainant and the PWs
is contradictory and there are huge discrepancies in their evidence. He has submitted
that learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondents. He has lastly
prayed for dismissal of instant Crl. Acquittal appeal.
10. Learned trial court while deciding point No.1as not proved on account of insufficient evidence, has observed
that “evidence of complainant is not
trustworthy at all, being self-contradictory and full of smart enhancement. The
complainant has frequently changed his stances so also suit the changing
environment and situation. The Prosecutor’s evidence is not supported by any
independent corroborative evidence. The documents produced by the prosecution
itself weaken the prosecution case”.
11. The material on record approves
the assessment of learned trial Court; hence, the Prosecution has failed to
bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled
principle of law that for basing conviction against an accused there should be
strong evidence before the trial court and if the doubt, even slightest, arises
in the prudent mind as to the guilt of the accused, benefit of the same has to
be extended in favour of the accused.
12. In so far as the contention of learned
counsel for the appellant with regard to non-compliance of the directions of
this Court as well as learned appellate court for re-recording of
examination-in-chief of the complainant and his witnesses is concerned, a
perusal of the impugned judgment shows that learned trial court while passing
the judgment has taken care of the directions of this Court as well as learned lower
appellate Court and in this regard the relevant portion of judgment is
re-produced as under;
“In compliance of judgment passed by Honourable High Court of Sindh
Bench at Sukkur, on 12.09.2018 fresh charge was framed against accused Manzoor
Ahmed, Zaffar Ali and Mehboob and their pleas were also recorded. On 26.03.2019
the learned ADPP filed statement in which learned ADPP adopted the same
examination-in-chief of the complainant and his witnesses, learned counsel for
complainant raised no objection on the said statement of learned ADPP, then
cross-examination of witnesses recorded”.
When the above fact was confronted with the
appellant’s counsel that the counsel for complainant before the learned trial court
himself extended No Objection for examination-in-chief of the complainant and
his witnesses already recorded then how he can raise such objections at this
stage to which counsel fails to give a plausible explanation and he simply
states that he was not counsel for the complainant at the trial stage he,
however, submits that it was the duty of the trial court to apply proper
judicious mind.
13. In the circumstances, I
do not find any merit in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant.
The learned trial court has recorded the reasons for its order of acquittal, which
are based on the evidence on record and the conclusion drawn by the learned
trial court as to the innocence of accused persons is appropriate.
14. The extraordinary remedy of an appeal against an acquittal is
different from an appeal against the order of conviction and sentence because
presumption of double innocence of the accused is attached to the order of
acquittal. Thus, on the examination of the order of acquittal as a whole,
credence is accorded to the findings of the subordinate court whereby the
accused had been exonerated from the charge of commission of the offence. Therefore, to reverse an order of acquittal,
it must be shown that the acquittal order is unreasonable, perverse and
manifestly wrong. The order of acquittal passed by the trial court, which is
based on correct appreciation of the evidence will not warrant interference in
appeal. The Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal against
acquittal has been pleased to lay down the principle in the case of Muhammad
Shafi Vs. Muhammad Raza& another reported in [2008 SCMR 329] as
under:-
“An accused is presumed to be innocent in law
and if after regular trial he is acquitted, he earns a double presumption of
innocence and there is a heavy onus on the prosecution to rebut the said
presumption. In view of the discrepant and inconsistent evidence led, the guilt
of accused is not free from doubt, we are, therefore, of the view that the
prosecution has failed to discharge the onus and the finding of acquittal is
neither arbitrary nor capricious to warrant interference.”
15. In view of above
reasons, the impugned acquittal Judgment does not suffer from any illegally or infirmity
and misreading or non-reading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice;
therefore, the same is not open for interference by the High Court under
section 417 (2) Cr.P.C. This
criminal acquittal appeal, therefore, stands dismissed accordingly alongwith
listed applications.
JUDGE
Ihsan/*