ALI DOST Versus State
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J. ---This criminal acquittal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04.11.2019, passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I/MTMC, in Criminal Case No.104 of 2019, re-The State v. Muhammad Achar Mugheri and others, emanating from Crime No.21 of 2019, registered at Police Station B-Section, Shahdadkot, for offences under sections 489-F, 420, 504, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 506/2, 34, P.P.C., whereby the respondents, namely, 1) Muhammad Achar, 2) Muhammad Saffar, and 3)Abdul Lateef, all three sons of Allah Dino Mugheri, have been acquitted of the charge.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the accused, namely, 1)Muhammad Achar, 2) Muhammad Saffar, and 3) Abdul Lateef, all three sons of Allah Dino Mugheri, were sent up with the challan to face their trial for offences under sections 489-F, 420, 504, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 506/2, 34, P.P.C., in the aforementioned criminal case, emanating from 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 Ali Dost Brohi ('the appellant') at Ex.6, who produced original cheque, memo and FIR at Ex.6/A to 6/C respectively; PW-2 Riaz Ahmed Brohi at Ex.4; PW-3 mashir of site inspection Ali Brohi at Ex.10, who produced mashirnama of site inspection at Ex.10/A; and, PW-4 I.O./ASI Abdul Sattar Brohi at Ex.11. After closure of the prosecution side, the statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 342, Cr.P,C, wherein they have denied the prosecution allegations and professed their innocence and their false implication in this case due to previous hostility between the parties.
5. At the conclusion of trial and after hearing the parties' Counsel, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents of the charge, extending them benefit of doubt vide impugned judgment dated 04.11.2019.
6. Having felt aggrieved by the said acquittal judgment, the appellant has preferred the present acquittal appeal.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record; that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt; and, that the impugned judgment, passed by the learned trial Court is illegal. The learned Counsel prays that this criminal acquittal appeal may be allowed and the respondents may be convicted.
8. The learned Additional Prosecutor General supporting the impugned judgment, has contended that the learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence brought on the record, has rightly acquitted the respondents; and, that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment.
9. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Prosecutor General and have gone through the material brought on record.
10. The principles for appreciation of evidence in appeals against the acquittal are now well settled. In the case of Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State (1992 SCMR 96), the Hon'ble 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 State/Government of Sindh through Advocate General, Sindh, Karachi v. Sobharo (1993 SCMR 585), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that: "while evaluating the evidence, difference is to be maintained in appeal from conviction and acquittal appeal and in the latter case interference is to be made only when there is gross misreading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice."
11. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that this criminal acquittal appeal instituted on 07.12.2019 against the acquittal judgment dated 04.11.2019 is patently time-barred by 03 days, as the period for filing the acquittal appeal as provided under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. is thirty (30), but the instant appeal was filed after 33 days; the said delay of 03 days has not been explained at all by the appellant; even otherwise, the main accused in this case is Nadir Ali Mugheri, who happens to be real brother of the respondents and had issued the subject cheque, which was allegedly dishonoured and accused Nadir Ali is proclaimed offender; the accusation against respondents Muhammad Saffar, Muhammad Achar and Abdul Lateef, all three sons of Allahdino Mugheri, is that on 22.04.2019, they took out pistols from the folds of their `shalwars' and pointed the same at the complainant asking him to remain silent and thereafter accused persons used abusive language and beaten the complainant, but there is no medical certificate to substantiate the ocular version regarding the complainant's sustaining injuries; this incident was shown to have taken place on 22.04.2019, but the FIR was lodged on 27.04.2019, with the delay of 05 days and there is no plausible explanation for such an inordinate delay in lodgment of the FIR, which adversely reflecting upon the prosecution case, cannot be ignored. These three respondents seem to have been implicated in this case being real brothers of main accused Nadir Ali. In such view of the matter, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond a reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court was right in acquitting the respondents, extending them benefit of doubt. Therefore, this appeal even on merits has no substance, which is accordingly dismissed.
SA/A-98/Sindh Appeal dismissed.