2015 PLP 2386 (YLR)

SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.

Impugned is the judgment dated 11-9-2014 passed in Cr. Case No. 2787 of 2012, passed by learned VII Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Karachi-Central, whereby the respondent No. 1, involved in the case 'Crime No. 300/2012 under section 506-B, P.P.C. registered with Police Station Gulberg, Karachi, was acquitted.

2. The prosecution story, in nutshell, as narrated in the FIR by the complainant is that on 15-10-2012 at about 2200 hours respondent No. 1 committed criminal intimidation by issuing life threats to the complainant Syed Shafaat Ali. The respondent No. 1 pleaded not guilty hence the prosecution to support his version, examined the complainant, Syed Feroz Ali and ASI Muhammad Ismail Mir, thereafter statement of accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and after hearing the parties, impugned judgment was passed.

3. Suffice is to say that impugned judgment appears to be without any infirmity, gross irregularity or suffers from any illegality as the trial court has thoroughly examined the depositions of all three witnesses and reached at conclusion that there are counter cases in between the parties due to dispute over ownership of a house and that delay of four days in lodging the FIR is also not explained. No independent or private witness was put in the witness box to connect the accused with the crime.

4. Learned A.P.G. submits that learned trial court by placing reliance on the case-law of superior court observed that accused cannot be held for a crime merely on probabilities and high presumption and no one shall be construed into a criminal case without any sufficient proof. Learned A.P.G. supported the impugned judgment and submitted that there are no extra ordinary reasons to set aside it.

5. It is not out of context to make here necessary clarification that an appeal against acquittal has distinctive features and the approach to deal with the appeal against conviction is distinguishable from the appeal against the acquittal because presumption of double innocence is attached in the later case. Order of acquittal can only be interfered with, if it is found on its face to be capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature or based on misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or is artificial, arbitrary and lead to gross miscarriage of justice. Mere disregard of technicalities in a criminal trial without resulting injustice is not enough for interference. Suffice is to say that an order/judgment of acquittal gives rise to strong presumption of innocence rather double presumption of innocence is attached to such an order. Reliance in this respect may conveniently be placed on Ali Sher v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 1576), Feroze Khan v. Fateh Khan (1991 SCMR 2220), The State v. Izzat Noor (1985 PCr.LJ 457), Feroze Khan v. Ghulam Nabi Khan (PLD 1966 SC 424), The State through Mehmood Ahmed Butt v. Sharaf-ud-Din Sheikh and another (2013 SCMR 565) and Haji Paio Khan v. Sher Biaz and others (2009 SCMR 803). While examining the facts in the order of acquittal, substantial weight should be given to the findings of the lower Courts, whereby accused were exonerated from the commission of crime as held by the Apex Court in Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad v. Fahim Afzal (1998 SCMR 1281). It is settled principle of law as held in the plethora of case-law, more particularly in the rulings, cited above, that acquittal would be unquestionable when it could not be said that acquittal was either perverse or that acquittal judgment was improper or incorrect as it is settled that when-ever there is doubt about guilt of accused, its benefit must go to him and Court would never come to the rescue of prosecution to fill-up the lacuna appearing in evidence of prosecution case as it would be against established principles of dispensation of criminal justice.

6. Resultantly, captioned Cr. Acquittal Appeal having no merits for consideration is hereby dismissed in limine. HBT/S-44/Sindh Appeal dismissed.