ORDER SHEET
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Crl. Acquittal Appeal No.S-67 of 2022
(Muhammad Iqbal
Memon Vs. The State and others)
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1.
For Orders on office objection.
2.
For hearing of main case.
08-03-2023.
Mr.
Muhammad Qayoom Arain,
advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Imran Mobeen Khan, APG for the State.
.-.-.-. -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
1. The
facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Crl.
Acquittal Appeal are that the private respondents allegedly after having formed
an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object inflicted
injuries to PW Babar Ali at his finger and then went away by insulting the
complainant Muhammad Iqbal, for that they were booked
and reported upon by the police. On conclusion of trial, they were acquitted of
the charge by learned III- Civil judge & Judicial Magistrate/MTMC Sukkur vide
judgment dated 07-04-2022, 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 Magistrate has recorded acquittal of the
private respondents without assigning cogent reasons; therefore their acquittal
is liable to be set aside by this Court.
3. Learned APG for the State by supporting
the impugned judgment has sought for dismissal of instant Crl.
Acquittal Appeal.
4. Heard arguments and perused the record.
5. The FIR of the incident has been lodged
with delay of about 24 days; such delay having not been explained plausibly
could not be overlooked. The parties admittedly are disputed over matrimonial
affairs. In these circumstances, learned trial Magistrate 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 together with listed applications.
JUDGE
Nasim /PA