IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Crl.Acquittal Appeal No.S-04 of 2020

Appellant/Complainant The State	:	Abbas Ali son of Muhammad Qasim Sarki through Mr.Makhdoom Syed Tahir Abbas Shah, Advocate. Through Mr. Aitbar Ali Bullo, D.P.G.
Date of hearing	:	17.03.2023
Date of decision	:	17.03.2023
		JUDGMENT

ZULFIQAR ALI SANGI, J ;- The listed Criminal Acquittal Appeal filed by appellant impugns the judgment dated 24.12.2019, passed by learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, whereby criminal appeal filed by private respondent Shahid Hussain against his conviction and sentence vide judgment dated 04.11.2019 passed in Crl.Case No.183/2019 (Re. St. Vs. Shahid Hussain) bearing Crime No.104/2018, for offence punishable U/S.489-F, 506/2, 420, 34 PPC registered with P.S A-Section Thull, by learned 1^st Judicial Magistrate/MTMC, Jacobabad, was set aside and he was acquitted of the charged offence.

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

4. The private respondent/accused in his statement recorded in terms of Section 342 Cr.PC denied the allegations leveled against him by pleading his innocence. However, he neither examined himself on oath nor led any evidence in his defence.

5. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsels for the parties and evaluation of the evidence, convicted the private respondent/accused and on assailing such judgment before learned appellate Court, he was acquitted by extending him benefit of doubt by way of impugned judgment, as discussed above.

6. Per learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that learned appellate Court has passed the judgment in violation of law and there was sufficient material available on record to convict the private respondent/accused but acquitted him 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 appellate Court is not based on sound reasoning. Lastly, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of learned appellate Court and allowing the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

7. On the other hand, learned D.P.G has supported the impugned judgment of leaned appellate Court and prayed for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for appellant/complainant, learned D.P.G for the State and perused the material made available on record.

9. The perusal of record reflects that the complainant and his witness tried to support the case at trial but when their evidence scrutinized thoroughly, was found coupled with material infirmities. The broad features involved in the present matter are that the learned appellate Court while examining the cheque in question produced by the appellant/complainant alongwith memo of bank indicated that the signature of the account holder is absolutely with different pen and ink and the amount in figure, name of the complainant and the amount in words appear to be written with different pen and ink, whereas the date of encashment therein i.e 24.04.2018 appears to be written with different pen and ink, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant that how at one and same time, it was possible. Further, in cross examination, the complainant admitted that he had not mentioned the place of receiving of cheque and place of selling of paddy crop and that he did not mention the fact in respect of witnesses of transaction of paddy crop and receiving of cheque and cash amount in his application seeking direction for FIR. He further admitted that the date mentioned in cheque is written with another ink and the memo of cheque is written with another ink. He further admitted in his cross examination that “It is correct to suggest that I did not produce any evidence in respect of my business of paddy crop”. All above improbabilities in the case have demolished the entire claim of the complainant and rendered it highly doubtful. Thus, without going into other contradictions in the case, it can safely be concluded that learned appellate Court has rightly recorded acquittal of the private respondent.

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 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. The sequel of above discussion is that the learned appellate Court has committed no illegality or irregularity while recording acquittal of the private respondent by way of impugned judgment, which even otherwise does not call for any interference by this Court by way of instant Criminal Acquittal Appeal, the same being devoid of merits is dismissed accordingly.

JUDGE