IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl.Acquittal Appeal No.S-127 of 2022
|
Appellant/Complainant |
: |
Ghulam Munawar Soomro, Deputy Manager F.I.R Cell Sui Gas Office, Larkana Region through Representative/ Authorized Officer SSGC namely Shabir Ahmed Bhutto, Assistant Manager F.I.R Cell SSGC Larkana,
Through Mr.Abdul Rasheed Abro, Advocate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of hearing |
: |
13.01.2023 |
|
Date of decision |
: |
13.01.2023 |
JUDGMENT
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J;- Through instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the appellant/complainant has assailed the judgment dated 21.11.2022, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Qamber-Shahdadkot @ Qamber, in Sessions Case No.111 of 2022 (Re.St.Vs. Tajuddin Waqar Shaikh), outcome of FIR bearing Crime No.23 of 2022 for offence punishable U/S.15 Gas Theft Control & Recovery Act, 2016 & 462-C and 427 PPC, registered with Police Station, A-Section Shahdadkot, whereby respondent/accused Tajuddin Waqar Shaikh was acquitted by extending him benefit of doubt.
2. Precisely, the facts leading to disposal of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that on 17.02.2022 at about 1745 hours, appellant/complainant Munawar Soomro got registered the FIR with P.S, A-Section Shahdadkot to the effect that on 28.12.2021, at about noon time, respondent Tajuddin Waqar Shaikh was found committing theft by installing an illegal rubber disrupting the gas by tampering with auxiliary distribution of gas pipeline, for that the present case was registered.
3. On completion of usual investigation, the police submitted final challan against the respondent/accused before learned trial Court where the case papers were supplied to him under receipt and the formal charge was framed against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined in all four witnesses who produced all the relevant documents in support of their statements. Thereafter, the learned State Counsel closed its side vide such statement kept on record.
5. The respondent/accused in his statement recorded in terms of Section 342 Cr.PC denied the allegations leveled against him by pleading his innocence. However, he neither examined himself on oath nor led any evidence in his defence.
6. The learned trial Court after hearing the Counsel for the parties and assessment of the evidence acquitted the respondent/accused by way of impugned judgment as discussed above.
7. Per learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that learned trial Court has passed the judgment in violation of law and there was sufficient material on record to convict the respondent/accused but learned trial Court acquitted him on flimsy grounds; that the evidence of complainant was corroborated by his witnesses and no major contradiction was noticed in their evidence; that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is not based on cogent reasons which needs to be set aside. Lastly, he prayed for admitting the instant criminal acquittal appeal and issuance of the notice to the concerned.
8. Heard learned counsel for appellant/complainant and perused the material made available on the record.
9. The perusal of judgment is entailing that the learned trial Court while extending benefit of doubt to the respondent/accused has acquitted him with the following reasons;
“All the PWs have given contradictory statements in their depositions. The I.O/ASI admitted that he has not inspected gas meter. He further admitted that he has challaned accused at the instance of complainant/SSGC Officer, which has dented the case of prosecution. Moreover, the law officer emphasized on bill of gas that bill is registered in the name of accused but he failed to bring on record the alleged bill of gas registered in the name of accused and from very beginning of case he was emphasizing that gas bill is registered in his name but he did not exhibit the bill during course of evidence nor produced the same at the time of arguments, to presume that he is real owner of hotel and bill is registered in his name. It appears that Law Officer for SSGC has shown negligence in proceedings of this case, which is dismaying and the negligence for not producing gas bill by Law Officer has damaged the case of prosecution”.
10. It is well settled by now that the scope of appeal against acquittal is very narrow and there is a double presumption of innocence and that the Courts generally do not interfere with the same unless they find the reasoning in the impugned judgment to be perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous as was held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of State Versus Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC 554), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under;-
From the ratio of all the above pronouncements and those cited by the learned counsel for the parties, it can be deduced 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. It has been categorically held in a plethora of judgments that 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. Moreover, in number of dictums of this Court, it has been categorically laid down that such judgment should not be interjected until the findings are perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous (Emphasis supplied). The Court of appeal should not interfere simply for the reason that on the re-appraisal 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. It is averred in The State v. Muhammad Sharif (1995 SCMR 635) and Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad v. Raja Fahim Afzal and 2 others (1998 SCMR 1281) that the Supreme Court being the final forum would be chary and hesitant to interfere in the findings of the Courts below. It is, therefore, expedient and imperative that the above criteria and the guidelines should be followed in deciding these appeals.
11. Based upon the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality or irregularity while recording acquittal of the respondent/accused by way of impugned judgment which even otherwise does not call for any interference by this by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the same fails and is dismissed in limine together with listed applications.
JUDGE