Crl. Acquittal Appeal No. D- 48 of 2021.






 Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry,

 Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi,

     For hearing of main case.


             Mr. Ghulam Shabir Baloch, Advocate for appellant.


                   =  *  = * = * = * = * =

ZULFIQAR  ALI  SANGI, J;- Through listed Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the appellant/complainant has assailed the judgment dated 18.11.2021, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Kamber, in Sessions Case No.445/2021 (Re. St. Vs. Saddam Hussain and another), outcome of FIR bearing Crime No.122/2021, for offence punishable U/S.302, 120-B & 34 PPC,  registered with Police Station, Kamber City, whereby the private respondents/accused were acquitted by extending them benefit of doubt. 

2.     The allegation against the private respondents/accused as per FIR lodged by complainant Ali Akbar Mugheri are to the effect that on 29.04.2021, at about 04.30 P.M, he received telephonic call from private respondent Saddam Hussain that his son Saleem has committed suicide and subsequently he also came to know that both the private respondents, in furtherance of their common intention, after hatching criminal conspiracy, shot dead his son Saleem by means of firearm, making it cover of a suicide, for that they were booked and challaned in the present case before learned trial Court where the formal charge was framed against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.


3.     At trial, the prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses who produced certain relevant documents in support of their statements. Thereafter, the learned State Counsel closed its side.



4.     The private respondents/accused in their statements recorded in terms of Section 342 Cr.PC denied the allegations leveled against them by pleading their innocence. However, they neither examined themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defence. 


5.     The learned trial Court after hearing the counsels for the parties and evaluation of the evidence, acquitted the private respondents/accused by way of impugned judgment, as discussed above.

6.     Per learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that learned trial Court has passed the judgment in violation of law and there was sufficient material available on record to convict the private respondents/accused but learned trial Court acquitted them 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 sound reasoning. Lastly, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment and allowing of the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

7.     Heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and perused the material made available on the record.

8.     The careful re-assessment of the evidence brought on record is entailing that the alleged incident was not witnessed by anyone and the FIR of present incident was got registered by the complainant with unexplained delay of about two days, with further disclosure that he came to know that murder of his son has actually been committed by the private respondents/accused. However, neither in the FIR nor in deposition, the complainant has disclosed the mode of information and from whom he received such information that his son was murdered by the private respondents/accused. Be that as it may, if version of the complainant is believed to be true then neither the person through whom he received information regarding murder of his son, was either examined by investigation officer during course of investigation or produced by him at trial to substantiate his claim. Further, the complainant in his cross examination himself admitted that he lodged FIR against the accused persons due to suspicious and this singular infirmity in the case has also rendered the entire case of the complainant to be doubtful. In that situation, learned trial Court has rightly recorded the acquittal of the private respondents.



9.     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.


10.    The sequel of above discussion is that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality or irregularity while recording acquittal of the private 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 accordingly together with listed applications.