ORDER SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl.
Acquittal Appeal No.S-162 of 2022
(Zainul Abideen Domki Vs. Fayaz
Ali Baloch and another)
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.
For Orders on MA No. 5502/2022.
2.
For Orders on MA No. 5503/2022.
3.
For hearing of main case.
01-03-2023.
Mr. Abdul
Salam Abbasi, advocate for appellant.
.-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
It
is alleged by the appellant that the private respondent by displaying false information
on his face-book page, besides blackmailing has caused damage to his reputation
intentionally for that he was booked and reported upon. On conclusion of trial,
he was acquitted by learned Incharge Ist Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Sukkur, vide
judgment dated 26-10-2022, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court
by preferring the instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal.
It is contended by learned counsel
for the appellant that learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the
private respondent without appreciating the evidence brought on record;
therefore his acquittal is liable to be set aside by this Court.
Heard arguments and perused the
record.
The action is delayed considerably;
the parties being related insterse are disputed over
matrimonial affairs, it was also stated by the I/O that on investigation no
abusive/derogatory post was found to have been uploaded by the private respondent.
In these circumstances, learned trial Magistrate was right to record acquittal
of the private respondent by extending him benefit of doubt, such acquittal is not
found to be arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.
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”.
In
view of the facts and reasons discussed above, the instant Crl.
Acquittal Appeal fails and it is dismissed in limini
together with listed applications.
JUDGE
Nasim /PA