Haji AMEER BUX KHAN vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment dated 26-3-2001 passed by the Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, which acquitted respondents Nos. 2 to 5 of charges under sections 460/302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in connection with F.I.R. No. 272 registered at Police Station City, Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents was justified based on the evidence presented, or if it suffered from misreading or non-reading of the record. Upon review, the High Court observed that the occurrence took place at night and the respondents were not nominated in the F.I.R. The trial court had conducted an exhaustive analysis of the prosecution evidence and found it unreliable, ultimately extending the benefit of doubt to the accused. The High Court held that the trial court's reasoning was neither arbitrary nor perverse and that the conclusions were reasonable. Consequently, the appeal was summarily dismissed. The key principle affirmed is that an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal judgment unless the trial court's findings are shown to be based on misreading or non-reading of evidence or are otherwise perverse.
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment if the trial court's reasoning is neither arbitrary nor perverse?
- Is an appeal against acquittal liable to be summarily dismissed if the appellant fails to demonstrate misreading or non-reading of evidence by the trial court?
- Section 460, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 421, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The record of the learned trial Court has already been received and the same has been perused.
2. Through this appeal Haji Amir Baldish appellant has called in question the judgment dated 26-3- 2001 handed down by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh whereby respondents Nos.2 to 5 were acquitted of the charge in case F.I.R. No,272 registered at Police Station City, Muzaffargarh on 17-5-1997 for offences under sections 460/302/34, P.P.C.
3. In support of this appeal it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that sufficient incriminatory evidence was available on the record so as to warrant conviction of respondents Nos.2 to 5 and the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting the said respondents.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the record it has been noticed by us that admittedly the occurrence in this case had taken place during a night and respondents Nos.2 to 5 were not nominated in the F.I.R. As the culprits who had perpetrated the said offences in question. At the trial the prosecution had produced various pieces of evidence in its bid to prove the guilt of respondents Nos.2 to 5 but after an exhaustive and detailed analysis of the evidence available on the record the learned trial Court had found each and every piece of evidence being relied upon by the prosecution to be unreliable so as to record the respondent's conviction. In the fmal analysis the learned trial Court had concluded that the prosecution had remained unable to prove its case against respondents Nos.2 to 5 beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, they were acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to them.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any misreading or non- reading of the relevant record on the part of the learned trial Court. The reasons advanced by the learned trial Court for recording the acquittal of respondents Nos.2 to 5 are neither arbitrary nor perverse and the conclusions arrived at by it are such that any reasonable Court could have arrived at the same upon a fair assessment of the evidence available on the record. In these circumstances the acquittal of respondents Nos.2 to 5 recorded by the learned trial Court has not been found by us to be open to any legitimate exception and this appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed under section 421, Cr. P.C.