JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Crl. Acquittal Appeal.No.D-19 of 2022.
(Sanwal Vs. Manzoor Ahmed & Ors)
_________________________________________________________________
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE
_________________________________________________________________
Before:
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah.
Mr. Justice Arbab Ali Hakro.
01. For orders on office objection “A”.
02. For orders on M.A.No.2206/2022.
03. For hearing of main case.
18.04.2023
Mr. Sanaullah Bhutto, Advocate for the appellant.
= * = * = * = * = * =
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is the case of appellant that the private respondents in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of his sister Mst.Subhan alias Muradan by means of violence and electric shock, for that they were booked and reported upon. On conclusion of trial they were acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Kashmore, vide judgment dated 11.04.2022, which the appellant has impugned before this Court by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents without appreciating the evidence brought on record properly; therefore, their acquittal is to be examined by this Court.
Heard arguments and perused the record.
The FIR of the incident has been lodged with delay of about one day; such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked; it is reflecting consultation and deliberation. On asking, it was stated by WMO Dr.Shushela that the injury No.1 was sustained by the deceased due to electric shock and remaining injuries could have been sustained by her on account of her fall on the ground which prima facie suggests that it was an accidental death. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents, which is not found 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 observed 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 criminal acquittal appeal fails and it is dismissed in limine together with listed application. JUDGE JUDGE