Cr.A.no 321-2-2002
Cr.A.no 321-2-2002
(Appellate/Revisional Jurisdiction)
PRESENT
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH,
1. Muhammad Ramzan,
2. Mukhtar Ahmad,
3. Muhammad Sharif,
4. Allah Bakhsh, all sons of Qadar Bakhsh, Caste Khokhar,
Residents of House # 17, Block No.30, Main road, near
Tawakali Hospital, Sargodha.
5. Mst. Shazadan wife of Ijaz Ahmad, Caste Majawar,
Resident of Muhammadi Colony, Sargodha.
6. The State.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant --- Mr. Nazir Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate
Counsel for respondents --- Mr. Aamir Majeed Rana, Advocate
-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,
JUDGMENT.
SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, J.— Through captioned
appeal by calling in question the legality, validity and perversity of
the judgment, delivered and pronounced on 28.10.2002, by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, thereby the
respondents were acquitted from the case FIR No.140, dated
Page 1 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
Page 2 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
Page 3 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
Page 4 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
Page 5 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
Page 6 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
accused Muhammad Ramzan told him that Safia Mumtaz was not
feeling well and they were taking her to Dherema for medical advice.
Complainant was accordingly informed by him. PW-5/WMO, Dr.
Robina Shaheen medically examined Mst. Safia Mumtaz on
19.09.2000 and observed as under:
Page 7 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
Page 8 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
Page 9 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
`artificial'
`shocking'
'ridiculous',
`based on misreading of evidence'
`and leading to miscarriage of justice'."
Page 10 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
AND
"where he (Trial Judge) has read the evidence fairly, and has
formulated grounds of doubt which are not perverse or were
illogical or unreasonable, there is a clear risk of departure
from the rule of the benefit of the doubt in reversing his
findings".
19. In the case of "Feroze Khan v. Fateh Khan and 2 others" 1991
SCMR 2220, held:--
13. Federal Shariat Court in the case of Mst. Salma Bibi Vs.
Niaz alias Billa and 2 others (2011 PCr.LJ 856) has also settled the
principles for deciding appeals against acquittal while placing
reliance on the case reported as The State Vs Tanveer-Ul-Hassan and 5
others (2009 PCr.LJ 199), wherein the following points were required
to be considered by the appellate Court while hearing an appeal
against acquittal:
“(i) Court will not normally interfere in the verdict of
acquittal, (ii) Court will give due weight and consideration to the
finding of the lower Court, particularly the trial Court which had the
occasion of not only recording the evidence but also watching the
demeanor of the witnesses and attending to the plea of the person
facing trial, (iii) what is the view of the trial Judge regarding the
credibility of witnesses, (iv) verdict of acquittal affirms the initial plea
that every person is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty, (v)
it is not a sufficient ground of interference that on re-appraisal of the
evidence on record a different view might as well be formed, (vi)
whether reappraisal of evidence shows any manifest wrong, perversity
or uncalled for conclusion from facts proved on record, (vii) whether
the findings arrived at by trial Court are wholly artificial, shocking
and ridiculous, (viii) whether material evidence has been
disregarded, (ix) whether material evidence has been misread
blatantly to an extent that miscarriage of justice has been occasioned,
Page 11 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
(x) whether evidence has been brought on record illegally, (xi) there
is, however, no bar upon the superior Courts to interfere in the
acquittal judgment, but the Courts exercise extra caution while
exercising jurisdiction in appeals against acquittal, (xii) the rights of
accused to any benefit of doubt and (xiii) mere disregard of
technicalities in a criminal trial without resulting injustice, is not
enough for interference."
Page 12 of 13
Crl. Appeal No.321/L of 2002
Judge
Page 13 of 13