Zubair Ali Mirani vs Zameer Hussain Detho and Others
This criminal acquittal appeal was filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 01.11.2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, whereby the private respondents were acquitted of murder charges. The prosecution alleged that the respondents pushed the deceased to the ground and kicked him to death while holding the appellant at gunpoint. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal order suffered from misappraisal of evidence or warranted appellate interference under the narrow scope governing appeals against acquittal. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, affirming the trial court's decision. It held that an unexplained delay of over one month in lodging the FIR could not be overlooked, and that the unanimous opinion of the medical board established that the deceased died of natural causes, which cannot constitute an offence. The court reiterated that appellate interference in an acquittal is exceedingly narrow and impermissible unless the findings are arbitrary, perverse, or cause a miscarriage of justice.
- Whether an unexplained delay of more than one month in lodging an FIR undermines the prosecution case in a criminal trial?
- Can murder charges be sustained when the unanimous opinion of a medical board confirms that the deceased died a natural death?
- Under what circumstances can an appellate court interfere with a trial court's judgment of acquittal?
1. IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The facts in brief necessary for dispos al of instant criminal acquittal appeal are that the private respondents allegedly committed murder of Anwar Ali by causing by pushing him on the ground and causing him kicks blows, after keeping the appellant under fear of death by pointin g their pistols at him, for that the present case was registered. On due trial, the private respondents were acquitted by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Larkana, vide judgment dated 01.11.2021, which is impugned by the appellant before this Court by preferring the instant criminal acquittal appeal.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has recorded acquittal of the private respondents on the basis of mis-appraisal of evidence which needs to be re-appraised by this Court by way of instant criminal acquittal appeal.
3. We have considered the above arguments and perused record.
4. The FIR of the incident has been lodged by the appellant with delay of more than one month and such delay having not been explained plausibly could not be overlooked. As per unanimous opinion of the medical board, the death of the deceased was natural. The natural death could hardly constitute an offence. Even otherwise, the very case was recommended by the police to be cancelled under "C" class. In these circumstances, learned trial Court was right to record acquittal of the private respondents by way of impugned judgment and such acquittal is not found to be arbitrary or cursory to be interfered with by this Court.
5. In case of State and others vs. Abdul Khaliq and others (PLD 2011 SC-554 ), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court 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. 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. Judgment of acquittal 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 reappraisal 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".
6. In view of the facts and reasons discussed above, instant criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine, together with listed applications