CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.-- This appeal calls in question the judgment and order passed by the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 12.3.2003, whereby the appeal filed against the order of the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur was dismissed.
2. The facts are that a case under Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985 was registered against the respondents which, after investigation, was challaned before the Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur. The Trial Court after conclusion of the trial convicted the respondents and sentenced them three years' and five years' imprisonment and Rs. 2000/- as fine respectively to each of the accused. An appeal filed on behalf of the respondents was accepted by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur and they were acquitted of the charge. A further appeal on behalf of the complainant before the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir was also. Dismissed. Hence, this appeal.
3. Ch. Lal Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the Trial Court after due appreciation of the facts and law proceeded to convict the accused-respondents. The opinion of the Trial Court who happens to record the evidence has got weight, It was also argued that the prosecution story was proved through a direct and indirect evidence. All the prosecution witnesses without any contradiction or discrepancy proved the case but interestingly the first Appellate Court acquitted the accused persons without giving any reason or. Point out any illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court, It was argued by him that in such like cases re-appraisal of evidence is necessary as the orders have been recorded against the evidence on record.
4. M/s. Muhammad Yunus Arvi and Yaqub Javed Batalvi, the learned counsel representing the respondents, controverted the arguments addressed on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the prosecution story was contradicted by the medical evidence, it was also contended that an un-believable story was brought before the Court which could not be proved by the prosecution, It was also argued that after the acquittal recorded by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction the order was affirmed by the Shariat, Court. The learned counsel further argued that no reappraisal of evidence is permissible.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The First Information Report was lodged by the appellant herein. It was disclosed that on 9.5.1996 at about 11:45 p.m. He was sleeping at the roof of his house alongwith his wife and children. The cot of his wife was adjacent. At the night time he saw that Amanat Ali, respondent No. 2, was sleeping with his wife Mst. Riaz Begum and they were naked for commission of zina. The appellant started bearing the respondents with a 'danda'. The villagers on his alarm gathered there and witnessed the occurrence. The investigation was completed and the respondents were sent to face trial under Section 18 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985. The Trial Court convicted the respondents while the first Appellate Court acquitted them. The order was upheld by the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
6. We have perused the judgment passed by the first Appellate Court, It does not appeal to us that the order passed by the Court which was subsequently affirmed by the Shariat Court was not based on sound reasons and was artificial, ridiculous, based on misreading of evidence and thus leading to mis-carriage of justice. Those are the basic grounds on which the acquittal order can be set aside as the law stands settled in this regard. Reliance in this regard may be placed on a case reported as Mirza Noor Hussain v. Faruq Zaman and 3 others (1993 SCM R 305) where the following observations were made:- "Trial Court's judgment having been supported by sound reasons Supreme Court could not substitute its on findings in place thereof unless it reached the conclusion that the findings of the Trial Court as well as those of the High Court were 'artificial, shocking, ridiculous, based on misreading of evidence and leading to miscarriage of justice'--No legal error was found in the judgments of the lower forums after scanning the evidence."
7. It may also be mentioned that in an appeal against the acquittal the Supreme Court would not on principle, ordinarily interfere and shall give due weight and consideration to the findings of Court acquitting the accused and the Court shall avoid re-appraisal of evidence as held in the case titled Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State (1992 SCM R 96), wherein it was observed:- "In view of these discrepancies the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellants. 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, 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."
8. In the present case the prosecution story that both the respondents were sleeping naked when the appellant saw them, started beating and the persons in the vicinity gathered there but one of the prosecution witnesses, who appeared to support the appellant, stated that they were not naked. Therefore, we have no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the Shariat Court and the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Mirpur, which are based on reasons as such the appeal merits no consideration which is hereby dismissed.