JUDGMENT SHEET

IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  SINDH, CIRCUIT  COURT,  LARKANA

Crl. Acquittal Appeal.No.D-21 of 2019.

(Ali Muhammad Vs. Abdul Razzaque & another)

_________________________________________________________________

DATE                        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

_________________________________________________________________

                       

                                                                                                                                                            Before:

                                                                                            Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah.

                                                                                           Mr. Justice Arbab Ali Hakro.

 

For hearing of main case.

02.05.2023

 

                        Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Barejo, Advocate for appellant.

                        Mr. Irshad Ali Ghanghro, Advocate for private respondent.

                        Mr. Ali Anwar Kandhro, Addl.P.G for the State

 

                        =  *  = * = * = * = * =

 

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- It is the case of appellant that the private respondent and others have committed  murder of his son Akbar. The private respondent joined trial and on conclusion whereof, he was acquitted by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana vide judgment dated 26.06.2019, which the appellant has impugned before this Court by way of instant Crl.Acquittal Appeal.      

            It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondent without appreciating the evidence properly; therefore, his acquittal is to be examined by this Court. 

            Learned Addl.P.G and learned counsel for the private respondent by supporting the impugned judgment have sought for dismissal of the instant criminal acquittal appeal by contending that it is based on    cogent reasons.

            Heard arguments and perused the record.

            The FIR of the present case was second in series; the earlier one was disposed of under “A” class; it has been lodged with unexplained delay of more than 20 days. None actually has seen the private respondent committing the alleged incident. Co-accused Allah Dino in earlier round of litigation has already been acquitted and his        acquittal has also attained finality upto the stage of this Court. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondent, 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.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  JUDGE    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                        JUDGE