IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl.Acquittal Appeal No.S-130 of 2022
|
Appellant/Complainant |
: |
Muhammad Hanif by caste Khoso, Through Mr.Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date of hearing |
: |
13.01.2023 |
|
Date of decision |
: |
13.01.2023 |
JUDGMENT
ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J;- The instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jacobabad, in Sessions Case No.25 of 2018 (Re. Muhammad Hanif Vs. Rahim Bux and others), outcome of direct complaint for offence punishable U/S.3, 4, 7 & 8 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, whereby respondents/accused Rahim Bux and eight others were acquitted.
2. The allegations against the respondents/accused as per direct complaint filed by the appellant/complainant are to the effect that on 26.03.2018, at about 04.00 P.M, the respondents/accused on point of deadly weapons illegally dispossessed the appellant/complainant from his agricultural land bearing Survey No.59, area measuring about 02 acres, situated in Deh Phull, Tapo Zangipur, Taluka Thull and also used filthy language by causing kicks, fists and butt blows to the complainant party with issuance of threats of dire consequences.
3. The learned trial Court after going through the reports of all the concerned and hearing the counsel for the parties brought the direct complaint on regular file of the Court and after supplying copies of papers to the respondents/accused framed the charge against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial vide their plea(s) were recorded separately.
4. To prove establish the accusation against the respondents/accused, the complainant examined himself and his witnesses Muhammad Saeed, Mukhtiarkar Revenue Thull namely Deedar Ali Kanrani and Inspector Ali Hassan Odho and then closed its side.
5. The respondents/accused in their statements recorded in terms of Section 342 Cr.PC denied the allegations leveled against them by pleading their innocence and thus prayed for justice. However, none of them examined themselves on oath in disproof of the charge nor led any evidence in their defence.
6. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and evaluation of the evidence brought on record, acquitted the respondents/accused by way of the 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 respondents/accused but the learned trial Court acquitted them on flimsy grounds; that the evidence of the complainant was corroborated by his witnesses and that no major contradiction was noticed in their evidence; that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is not based on cogent reasons which requires interference by this Court and may be set aside. He thus 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 has recorded acquittal of the respondent/accused with the following reasons;
“I find material contradictions in depositions of complainant and eye witness Muhammad Saeed with regard to weapons with which accused were armed at the time of incident, no medical evidence is on record to suggest if complainant, his witnesses had received blows/injuries at hand of accused, complaint is filed on 12.10.2018, whereas occurrence had taken place on 02.03.2018 and according to complainant 4 to 5 days later from incident, he filed complaint of this case, from which it appears that he has not supported perfectly date and month of alleged occurrence, he went on supporting allegation that entire 02 acre area of survey No.59, was occupied by accused, although from reports of village Revenue staff 03 ghunta was in possession of accused and as per report of team of Survey Superintendent Larkana 05 ghunta was found in possession of accused and the then SHO Inspector Ali Hassan deposed that houses of accused are constructed since long in village Muhammad Bux Brohi, established on abandoned Karyo-Korar Wah prior to year 1992. It appears that after heavy flood in year 2010, houses of accused were got constructed with help/finance of NGOs, 03 or 05 ghunta from survey No.59 appears in possession of accused Hamzo and his sons, where paka built houses are constructed, these house appears to be in possession of accused concerned from year 1997 or even prior to purchase of land by complainant. Allegation of illegal dispossession from entire 02 acre area of survey No.59 is not found true. In view of evidence of Mukhtiarkar Thul and SHO Inspector Ali Hassan, I am of the considered view that complainant had developed anger against accused on account of damage to his crop by cattle belonging to accused and according to P.W Muhammad Saeed prior to alleged occurrence incident of house trespass was committed by accused in house of complainant, hence possibility cannot be ruled out that on account of such anger, complaint filed this complaint, thereby prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable doubts”.
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 Honourable 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 respondents/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