IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 518 of 2021

Appellant: Haji Gul through Syed Suleman Badshah, advocate

Respondent No.1: N/R

Respondent No.2: The State through Syed Meeral Shah Addl. P.G for the State

Date of Hearing: 13.07.2022

Date of Judgment: 13.07.2022

J U D G M E N T

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J-. It is alleged that the private respondent not only fired at the appellant with intention to commit his murder but caused him butt blows with his pistol for that he was booked and reported upon. After due trial, he was acquitted by learned XIII-Assistant Sessions Judge, Karachi West vide Judgment dated 23^rd August 2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Acquittal appeal.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial court has recorded acquittal of the private respondent on the basis improper assessment of the evidence therefore his acquittal is liable to be examined by this Court.

3. Learned Addl. P.G for the State has sought for dismissal of instant acquittal appeal by supporting the impugned judgment.

4. Heard arguments. Perused record.

5. The fires made at the appellant allegedly by the private respondent with intention to commit his murder proved to be ineffective in all respect which appears to be surprising. The appellant and the private respondent are related inter-se and more so, P.Ws Muhammad Zakir, Abdul Rahim, Abdul Ahad, Bari Dad and Qudratullah being independent persons have not been examined by the prosecution for no obvious reason. The inference which could be drawn of their non-examination would be that they were not going to support the case of the prosecution. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of private respondent, such acquittal 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 held 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 above, the instant Acquittal Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.

J U D G E