2017 P Cr (PLP)

SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.

Learned counsel for appellant/complainant by supporting the judgment of the trial Court delivered on 18.01.2014 in Criminal Case No.45/2013, crime No.26/2013 under sections 506 (2), 147, 148, 149, 337-F(vi), 504, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Pangrio submitted that there was sufficient evidence brought by the prosecution before the trial Court and the subsequent judgment recorded in Criminal Appeal No.01/2013 on 16.04.2014, whereby the accused were acquitted by the appellate Court is not tenable under law.

2. On the other hand, counsel for accused/respondents and D.P.G. Sindh for the State are found in complete consistent with the impugned judgment, delivered by the appellate Court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the original judgment of trial Court and the impugned judgment pronounced by the appellate Court.

4. It is an admitted position that the Medico-legal Officer who issued the certificates, observed that the injuries to the complainant and his son were caused with hard and blunt substance. However, the complainant has categorically stated that sharp cutting weapon has been used for causing the injuries to the person of injured. Mr. Ishrat Ali Lohar has cited the case of 'Amal Sherin and another v. The State through A.G. N.W.F.P.' reported as PLD 2004 Supreme Court 371; is not attracting in the circumstances of the present case, a dicta laid down by the honourable apex Court in the cited ruling relates to the principles of relationship of witnesses with the deceased, motive and ocular testimony. The principle of contradiction in between ocular and medical testimony has not been discussed in the cited ruling. On the other hand, Mr. Ashfaque Ali Khaskheli learned counsel representing the respondents/accused while placing reliance on 2009 SCMR 803 and 2009 SCMR 985 of apex Court, supported the acquittal of the respondents recorded by the appellate Court. In the case of 'Muhammad Aslam v. Sabir Hussain and others' reported as 2009 SCMR 985, the honourable apex Court held that the medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of injury, nature of injury and kind of weapon used in the occurrence, but it would not connect the accused with the commission of the crime. In placitum-C and placitum-D, the principle of law relating to re-appraisal of evidence in appeals against acquittal has also been dilated upon with observation that the presumption of double innocence is attracting in the case of acquittal of accused persons and such finding cannot be reversed, upset and disturbed except when the judgment is found to be perverse, shocking, alarming, artificial and suffering from error of jurisdiction or misreading or non-reading of evidence. Judgment of acquittal shall not be disturbed even though second opinion may be reasonably possible. The citation relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents/accused are applicable in all fours.

5. Suffice to say that it is settled law that it is not necessary that for acquittal of accused, there shall be series of contradiction and even a single circumstance creating doubt in a prudent mind is sufficient to acquit the accused. If need arises reliance may conveniently be placed on 1995 SCMR 1345, 1997 SCMR 25 and 2008 SCMR 1221.

6. A Division Bench of Lahore High Court in 2010 PCr.LJ 1051 observed in the following manner: It has been repeatedly held by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan that interference in appeal against acquittal is a rare phenomenon and even if two views could be adopted after the perusal of the evidence adduced by the parties, the view favourable to the accused/respondents is to be preferred. In the case in hand after perusal of the evidence the view adopted by the learned trial Court is found to be based on the evidence on the record. It needs no reiteration that there is a marked difference between appraisement of evidence in the appeal against conviction and in the appeal against acquittal. In the appeal against conviction appraisal of evidence is done strictly and in the appeal against acquittal, the same rigid method of appraisement is not to be applied as there is already finding of acquittal given by the trial Court after proper analysis of evidence on record. In the acquittal appeal, interference is made only when it appears that there has been gross misreading of the evidence, which amounted to miscarriage of justice. While considering the scope of section 417, Cr.P.C. it is held that in an appeal against acquittal, this Court would not, in principle, ordinarily interfere and instead would give due weight and consideration to the findings of the Court acquitting the accused. The Court would not interfere with the acquittal order merely because on re-appraisement of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible. It is true that the finding of acquittal is not sacrosanct, if the reasons given by the trial Court are speculative or of artificial nature or the findings are based on no evidence or is the result of misreading or misinterpretation of evidence or the conclusion drawn as to the guilt or innocence of the accused persons, are perverse, resulting into miscarriage of justice. Same can be interfered with in appropriate cases in the light of the principles laid down by the apex Court regarding appreciation of evidence. In Yar Muhammad and 3 others v The State (1992 SCMR 96), it was observed: "The High Court was hearing an acquittal appeal and the principles of setting aside an order of acquittal are now well-settled. Unless the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, completely illegal and on perusal of evidence no other decision can be given except that the accused is guilty or there has been complete misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice, the High Court will not exercise jurisdiction under section 417, Cr.P.C. In exercising this jurisdiction the High Court is always slow unless it feels that gross injustice has been done in the administration of criminal justice."

7. It is well settled principle of law that an appeal against acquittal has distinctive features and the approach to deal with the appeal against conviction is distinguishable from appeal against acquittal, because presumption of double innocence is attached in the latter case. An order of acquittal can only be interfered with when it is found on the face of it as capricious, perverse, arbitrary or foolish in nature, which are lacking in this case. Reliance is placed on Inayat Ullah Butt v. Muhammad Javed and others (PLD 2003 SC 562).

8. In view of whatever mentioned above, I reached to the irresistible conclusion that the acquittal of respondents does not suffer from any illegality so as to call for my interference with the impugned judgment. According to golden principle of benefit of doubt, one substantial doubt is enough to acquit the accused. The learned appellate Judge has advanced valid and cogent reasons for passing a finding of acquittal in favour of respondents and I see no legal justification to disturb the same. Resultantly, the appeal fails which is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed. WA/G-27/Sindh Appeal dismissed.