THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No.334 of 2020

Present: Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi

Appellant : Mrs. Soofia Khan wife of Syed Azhar Ali, through Mr. Asif Ibrahim Memon, advocate

Respondent : The State through Ms. Seema Zaidi, Additional Prosecutor General Sindh

Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025

Date of decision : 05.05.2025

JUDGMENT

Shamsuddin Abbasi, J.- Respondents/accused Syed Azhar Ali son of Syed Mazhar Ali, Mrs. Tehzeeb Fatima wife of Mohiuddin and Mst. Bushra daughter of Syed Mazhar Ali were tried by learned Judicial Magistrate-XIII, Karachi East in Case No.1060/2019, arising out of FIR No.221/2019, registered at P.S. Jamshed Quarters, Karachi for offence under sections 324, 357, 352, 506-B, 337-A(i), 504, 34, PPC. After regular trial, respondents were acquitted of the charge vide judgment dated 12.02.2020. Appellant/complainant Mrs. Soofia Khan, being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment has filed this criminal acquittal appeal. Notice was issued to the Prosecutor General Sindh.

2. Learned counsel for appellant/complainant mainly argued that delay in lodging of FIR has been fully explained; contradictions as pointed out by the trial Court were minor in nature and acquittal recorded by the trial Court was unwarranted and it is perverse in law.

3. Moreover, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh has argued that trial Court has rightly recorded acquittal in favour of respondents as there was delay of four days in lodging of FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished. She further argued that evidence of the eyewitnesses has been found by the trial Court doubtful and there were material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Lastly, it is argued that the scope of acquittal appeal is quite narrow and limited and that the appeal is without merits.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for parties, I have carefully perused the acquittal judgment passed by the trial Court. Learned trial Court has fully discussed each and every aspect of the case and while appreciating evidence came to the conclusion that there was delay of four days in lodging of FIR for which no plausible explanation has been furnished; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons as it relied upon the ocular testimony of complainant and other witnesses, evaluation whereof reveal that ocular account furnished by complainant Mrs. Soofia Khan did not support the contents of FIR; that there are material contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded by learned trial Court. Trial Court has mentioned the anomalies and weaknesses in the prosecution case, which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. Attention of the learned counsel for the appellant has been drawn to those contradictions but he could not satisfy the Court. Trial Court has rightly held that there are several circumstances in the prosecution case which have created reasonable doubt. A single doubt is sufficient for recording the acquittal. Reliance is placed on the case of Tariq Parvez vs. The State (1995 SCMR 1354).

6. 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 as held in the case of The State v. Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 554). Relevant portion is reproduced 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.”

7. For the above stated reasons, there is no merit in the appeal against acquittal. Finding of innocence recorded against respondents/accused by trial Court is based upon sound reasons, which require no interference at all. As such, the appeal against acquittal is without merit and the same is dismissed.

8. These are the reasons of my short order dated 05.05.2025, whereby the instant criminal acquittal appeal No.334/2020 was dismissed.

J U D G E

Gulsher/PS