Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.D-87 of 2019



                                                              Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput

                                                              Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah


Appellant:                            Gulzar son of Qaimuddin, bycaste Chijan, Resident of Tando, Taluka Rohri, District Sukkur.


                                                Through Mr. Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo, advocate.


The respondents:                Through Mr. Shabbir Ali Bozdar, advocate.


The State:                              Through Mr. Zulfiquar Ali Jatoi, Additional P.G for the State.


Date of Hearing:                 25-01-2023

Date of Judgment:              25-01-2023



 IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. It is alleged that the private respondents with rest of the culprits, after having formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object committed murder of Shahbaz Dino and Imdad Ali by causing them fire shot injuries and then went away by causing damage to their car with fire shots, for that they were booked and reported upon.  On conclusion of trial, they were acquitted by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Sukkur vide judgment dated 14-05-2019, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal.

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

3.         Learned Additional P.G for the State and learned counsel for the private respondents by supporting the impugned judgment have sought for the dismissal of instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal by contending that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and it is based on proper assessment of evidence.

4.         Heard arguments and perused the record.

5.         The FIR of the incident has been lodged with the delay of about 06 hours; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be over looked. It was night time incident, therefore identity of the respondents by the appellant under the light of Car was weak piece of the evidence. PWs Imran Ali and Abdul Waheed on asking were fair enough to state that they do not know as to which of the accused caused fire shot injuries to which of the deceased. By stating so, they belied the complainant that, the respondents and co-accused Bashir (now has died) made straight fires upon the deceased. On investigation as per I/O SIP Muhammad Hashim, the private respondents were let off by him finding them to be innocent. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by extending them benefit of doubt, 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 the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal fails and it is dismissed accordingly.



  J U D G E


                                                                        J U D G E