12. It is clarified that appeal against acquittal has distinctive feature and approach. To deal with appeal against conviction is distinguishable from appeal against acquittal because presumption of doubt innocence is attached in later case. This Court can only interfere in the order of acquittal when it is found on the face of it as capricious, perverse, arbitrary in nature or based on misreading, non-appraisal of evidence or is artificial, and led to gross miscarriage of justice. Suffice it to say that an order/judgment of acquittal given rise to strong presumption of innocence rather double presumption of innocence is attached to such an order Muhammad Haneef v. Mst.Reshman and 3 others (1998 P.Cr.L.J. 1576), Feroze Khan v. Fateh Khan and 2 others (1991 SCMR 2220), The State v. Izzat Noor (1985 P.Cr.L.J. 457), Feroze Khan v. Captain Ghulam Nabi Khan and another (PLD 1966 Supreme Court 424). While examining the facts in the order of acquittal, substantial weight should be given to the findings of the lower Courts whereby accused were exonerated from the commission of crime Muhammad Ijaz Ahmed v. Raja Fahim Afzal and 2 others (1998 SCMR 1281). It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Courts that acquittal would be unquestionable when it could not be said that acquittal was either perverse or that acquittal judgment was improper or incorrect as it is settled that whenever there is doubt about guilt of accused, its benefit must got to the accused, and the Court would never come to the rescue of prosecution to fill the lacuna appearing in the evidence of prosecution case as it would be against established principles of dispensation of criminal justice.Reliance is made upon Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230) and Waqar Nazir and others v. The State (2007 SCMR 661).
Part of Judgment
2872-10
| 2015 LHC 6607 |
0 Comments