IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Acquittal Appeal No.S-98 of 2022

Appellant	:	Mst.Hakeema w/o Abdul Qadeer Panhwar Through Mr.Muhammad Afzal Jagirani, Advocate.


Date of hearing	:	16.02.2023
Date of decision	:	16.02.2023

JUDGMENT

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J;- Through instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the appellant/complainant has assailed the judgment dated 17.09.2022, passed by learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, in Sessions Case No.292 of 2021 (Re. St. Vs. Nazir Ahmed and others), outcome of FIR bearing Crime No.29/2021 for offence punishable U/S.452, 436, 382, 506/2, 427, 148, 149 PPC, registered with Police Station, Rustam, whereby respondents/accused Nazir Ahmed and five others were acquitted by extending them benefit of doubt.

2. The facts of the case are already mentioned in memo of Criminal Acquittal Appeal as well as FIR, hence the same need not to be repeated.

3. On completion of usual investigation, the police submitted final challan against the respondents/accused before concerned Magistrate and the formal charge was framed against them by learned trial Court, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. To establish its case, the prosecution examined in all three witnesses who produced all the relevant documents in support of their statements. Thereafter, the learned State Counsel 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. However, they neither examined themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defence.

6. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and assessment of the evidence acquitted the respondents/accused by way of 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 learned trial Court acquitted them on flimsy grounds; that the evidence of complainant was corroborated by his witness and 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 to be set aside. Lastly, he prayed for admitting the instant criminal acquittal appeal and issuance of the notice to other side.

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

9. The perusal of judgment reveals that the learned trial Court acquitted to the respondents/accused with the observation that “Complainant Mst.Hakeeman (Exh.16) completely failed to corroborate the case of prosecution as narrated in the FIR on any of the relevant points; she deposed contrary to the contents of FIR that one Mst.Afsana with her free-will and wish married with brother of her husband namely Waheed during year 2020 and that she does not remember the exact of incident. Moreover, the prosecution examined another witness namely Imran (Exh.17) who also failed to corroborate the contents of FIR as well as evidence of the complainant; his evidence is totally found in contradiction with the case of prosecution. Further, evidence of I.O is also not helpful to the case of prosecution who has not recorded statement of any independent person from the locality about the incident nor succeeded in securing the other material, allegedly burnt into ashes and according to him, the house of complainant which was reported to be burnt, was found intact. No any incriminating evidence was found against the accused to connect them in commission of the alleged offence”.

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 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.

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 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 in limine together with listed application.

JUDGE