KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.----This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 01 11.2019, passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-II/MTMC, Jacobabad, in Criminal Case No.21 of 2019, re-State v. Shabeer Buriro and others, emanating from Crime No.24 of 2018 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Jacobabad, for offence under sections 506/2, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C., whereby the respondents, namely , 1) Shabeer son of Wali Muhammad, and 2) Khabar alias Khabroo son of Sher Khan, both by caste Buriro, have been acquitted of the charge.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondents, namely , 1) Shabeer son of Wali Muhammad, and 2)
Khabar alias Khabroo son of Sher Khan, both by caste Buriro, were sent up with the challan to face their trial for offence under Sections 506/2, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C. in the aforementione d Sessions Case based on the subject FIR.
3. After completing the formalities, a formal charge was framed against the above-named accused ['the respondents' ], to which they pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried.
4. At the trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 complainant Jalal at Ex.6. who produced FIR at Ex.6-A; PW-2 eye- witness Attur at Ex.7: PW-3 ASI Abdul Rasheed at Ex.8, who produced memo of site inspection at Ex.8-A; and, PW-4 Jamaluddin Buriro at Ex.9. After closure of prosecution side, statements of respondents were recorded under Section 342, Cr.-P.C, wherein they have denied the prosecutio n allegations and claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant due to previous enmity .
5. At the conclusion of the trial and after hearing the parties' Counsel, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents of the charge vide impugned judgment dated 01.1 1.2019.
6. Having felt aggrieved by the said judgment, complainant Jalal Buriro ['the appellant] has preferred the present criminal acquittal appeal.
7. Appellant Jalal Buriro, present in person, submits that respondents have caused kicks and fist blows to him and also threatened him on gunpoint to withdraw his claim from the plot; and, that the learned trial Court has not considered his case properly . He prays that the appeal may be allowed and the respondents/accused may be convicted.
8. I have heard the appellant in person and have gone through the material brought on record.
9. The principles for appreciation of evidence in appeals against the acquittal are now well settled in case of Yar Muhammad and 3 others v . The State (1992 SCMR 96 ). The Hon'be apex Court of Pakistan has observed that "Unless the judgment of 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, High Court will not exercise jurisdiction under section 417, Cr.P.C." It was further held that "in exercising this jurisdiction, High Court is always slow unless it feels that gross injustice has been done in the administration of criminal justice".
In the case of Muhammad Shah v. Muhammad Raza and another (2008 SCMR 329), Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:- "An accused is presumed to be innocent in law and if after regular trial he is acquitted he earns a double presumption of innocence and there is a heavy onus on the prosecution to rebut the said presumption. In view of the discrepant and inconsistent evidence led, the guilt of accused is not free from doubt, we are therefore, of the view that the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus and the finding of acquittal is neither arbitrary nor capricious to warrant interference. The petition having no merit is dismissed and leave is refused."
In the case of State and others v. Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC 554), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 of wholly artificial or a shocking conclusio n has been drawn. Moreover , in a 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 . 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, suf fering from serious and material factual infirmities".
10. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that there is inordinate delay of more than 34 days in lodgment of the FIR, as the incident is alleged to have taken place on 12.3.2018 and whereas the FIR was lodged on 16.4.2018 and for such an inordinate delay in lodgment of the FIR no explanation has been offered by the prosecution: no independent person was cited as witness or mashir , although the Place of incident is a populated area, as was admitted by PW-1 complainant in his cross-examination, stating that "I do not remember that how many other persons gathered there at the time of incident; accused beaten my whole'. body; I do not remember that how much time we took to purchase such household articles from market; I do not remember that in how much amount I purchased such articles; 1 do not remember that who was driving motorcycle; I along with Attar went to police ,station for lodging1r , the FIR; do not remember that from which side accused persons camel' and in which side they fled away ." PW-2 Attur has deposed that "We came at Jacobabad at 4.00 p.m. Accused Shabir , Muhiuddin, Bagoo and Khabar met and asked my brother to withdraw from plot. Thereafter all accused persons issuing threats went towards eastern' side." In cross-examination he has stated that: "accused persons came at the place of incident at 5.00 p.m. from western side"; he does not state about his accompanying the complainant to the police station for lodging the FIR, as was stated by the complainant; he also does not state that the complainant was beaten by any of the accused; PW-3 Jamaluddin has stated that "On 12.3.2018, at 4.00 p.m. four accused persons came on two motorbikes in front of me and my father and asked my father to withdraw from plot else they shall commit his murder . All accused persons caused kicks and fist blows to my father and uncle." In cross- examination he stated that: "We went to police station with Court order on foot." The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is self-destructive and contradictory to each other; the medical evidence is also not in line with the prosecution case. The aforementioned material and glaring contradictions, dishonest and deliberate improvements and admissions adverse to the prosecu tion case of the P. Ws during the trial rendered the prosecution case doubtful. The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence brought on the record, has acquitted the respondents, extending them benefit of doubt on failure of the prosecution to prove its case against them beyond reasonable doubt. After acquittal of the accused by the Court of competent jurisdiction, presumption of double innocence is attached to the acquittal judgment, which normally does not call for interference unless the acquittal judgment or order is found arbitrary , capricious, fanciful and against the record in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as discussed supra. A perusal of the impu gned acquittal judgment would reveal that the same is apt to the facts and circumstances of the case, which suffering from no illegality or any infirmity and/or misreading or non-reading of the evidence, does not call for any interference and this criminal acquittal appeal deserves to be dismissed. Above are the reasons of short order announced by me on 22.11.2019, whereby the instant criminal acquittal appeal was dismissed.