Acquittal

  1. In case of acquittal of an accused there is always a double presumption of innocence in his favour — The first is that he cannot be termed as a criminal unless the guilt is proved against him, the second presumption is that if a person is acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, he has a double presumption of innocence in his favour. M. Feroz Khan v. M. Riaz  2003 SCR 3 (C)
  2. Acquittal carries double presumption of innocence — One is initial that till found guilty accused persons are innocent and second is that Court of law having jurisdiction records order of acquittal — Court would interfere only if it is proved from the record that the order of acquittal is perverse and reasons in support of the same are artificial and ridiculous. Asia Bibi & 5 others  v. Ghazanfar Ali & 3 others 2005 SCR 1 (F)
  3. The Supreme Court can interfere only in acquittal order if it is proved that the same are perverse, arbitrary and contradictory to the record of the case. Masood Hussain & 2 others v. Ghazanfar Ali & 3 others 2005 SCR 272 (D)
  4. Double presumption of innocence — Accused was acquitted by Shariat Court — There is double presumption of innocence in favour of accused — An accused is innocent until and unless he is proved guilty while the other on the basis of order of acquittal. Wazarat Hussain v. Nazir Akhtar & another 2009 SCR 273 (L)
  5. The acquittal order passed in favour of an accused has double presumption of innocence. Ghulam Rasool & another v. The State and another 2011 SCR 324 (L)
  6. It is settled principle of law that until an acquittal order is found perverse, arbitrary and fanciful that cannot be interfere with.  Ali Muhammad v. Muhammad Akram & another 2014 SCR 351 (D ) Khalid Mehmood and others vs. Arshad Mehmood and others (Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2010, decided on 14.3.2013), and 2004 SCR 140, rel.
  7. Once an accused is acquitted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, for setting aside the same there must be some extraordinary compelling reasons. Muhammad Ismaeel Khan v. Sajaad Hussain & 14 others 2014 SCR 442 (E) 2005 SCR 272 and 1993 SCMR 305, rel.
  8. It is now settled principle of law that for setting-aside the acquittal order, there must be some very strong and valid legal reasons. According to law, presumption of innocence is also multiplied by the competent courts in cases of acquittal which normally cannot be interfered with. Ansar Mahmood & another v. Manazir Hussain & another 2014 SCR 770 (E)
  9. Reappraisal of evidence in the appeal against acquittal is always avoided by this Court. Abid Hanif v. Muhammad Afzal & 4 others 2014 SCR 983 (A)
  10. It is celebrated principle of law that normally in the cases where there is double presumption of innocence, this Court is very slow in interfering with the impugned judgment and same can be interfered with if Court comes to the conclusion that the judgment is artificial, perverse, arbitrary and shocking in nature. The principle for appreciating the evidence in appeal against acquittal and conviction are quite different. Abid Hanif v. Muhammad Afzal & 4 others 2014 SCR 983 (D)
  11. The acquittal order cannot be interfered with as after the acquittal the accused are enjoying the double presumption of innocence. Abid Hanif v. Muhammad Afzal & 4 others 2014 SCR 983 (E) 2005 SCMR 1507 and 2011 SCR 324 Rel.
  12. It is settled that for setting aside an acquittal order there must be strong reasons supported by evidence on record. Javed Iqbal v. Fayyaz Ahmed & another 2014 SCR 1441 (B)
  13. After acquittal, the accused enjoys double presumption of innocence. (C) Javed Iqbal v. Fayyaz Ahmed & another 2014 SCR 1441 2013 PSC (Crl) 346, PLJ 2012 SC (AJ&K) 74, 2010 SCMR 491, PLJ 2009 FSC 284 & 2008 SCR 345 ref.
  14. Interference in — prosecution’s duty to satisfy — it is now almost settled principle of law that for setting aside the acquittal order the prosecution has to satisfy the Court that the order is perverse, arbitrary or contrary to record of the case. Raqiba Begum & others v. Javid Iqbal & others 2015 SCR 1335 (E) 2005 SCR 272 rel.
  15. Carries double presumption of innocence — initially, every accused is deemed to be innocent till he is proved guilty and secondly from the acquittal order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction —acquittal not perverse — no interference by Supreme Court. Abdul Majeed & 4 others v. M. Latif & 3 others 2016 SCR 1306 (E & F) 2005 SCR 1 & 2014 SCR 351 ref.
  16. Held: in the case of ‘Qisas’ a legal heir/‘wali’ apart from the state is competent to file an appeal from the acquittal or for enhancement of the sentence. Muhammad Malik v. Karam Elahi & another 2011 SCR 431 (Q)
  17. — It is settled principle of law that an accused, when acquitted  of  the  charge,  enjoys  double presumption  of  innocence  and  once  an  acquittal has been made,  the same  can only be set aside if  the  Court  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the order  is  capricious,  fanciful,  perverse,  arbitrary and  against  the  settled  norms  of  justice. Waseem Hussain & 2 others v. Muhammad Rafique & another  2017 SCR 428 (A)  2014 SCR 1441 rel.
  18. —it is also well settled principle of law that an accused, when acquitted of the charge, enjoys double presumption of innocence and once an acquittal has been made, the same can only be set aside if the Court comes to the conclusion that the order is capricious, fanciful, perverse, arbitrary and against the settled norms of justice. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661(S)
  19. —under law to get an acquittal order converted into conviction, is a difficult job for the prosecution; it is like a liberated bird who had flown away towards the limitless space and free air, but now prosecution wants to get him back again into the cage. Yasmin Ashraf &others vs Abdul Rasheed Garesta &others 2018 SCR 661 (AA)
  20. —According to settled principle of administration of justice for setting-aside the acquittal order the appellate Court cannot interfere with merely on the ground that from reappraisal of evidence a different conclusion can be drawn rather interference is only warranted when certain conditions exist. Muhammad Mushtaq Khan vs Israr Ahmed & others 2018 SCR 986 (B) PLD 1985 SC 11 & 1992 SCMR 1036 ref
  21. —An acquittal cannot lightly be interfered with until some cogent and strong reasons are shown or it is shown that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, illegal or erroneous otherwise the acquittal cannot be disturbed mere on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Abdul Majeed vs Muhammad Azmat & another 2018 SCR 1206 (B) PLD 1985 SC 11 rel.
  22. —Section 14, the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Act, 1985—theft of mobile phone— grounds for reverse of acquittal—allegation against the accused-respondent is theft of mobile phone of the appellant—the trial Court acquitted the accused—-the High Court concurred the with the trial Court–under law until an acquittal order is found perverse, arbitrary and fanciful that cannot be interfered with. Javed Iqbal  Nosherwani v. Naveed Ahmed 2019 SCR 577 (A)  2018 SCR 1206 rel
  23. —After acquittal, the accused enjoys double presumption of innocence. Gulzaib Khan v. Azkar Hussain & another 2022 SCR 76 (A)
  24. — The acquittal order concurrently recorded by the Courts below in favour of the accused itself carries double presumption of innocence—Supreme Court on appeal can only interfere with the acquittal orders passed by the Courts below, if the interpretation of law or the Constitution is involved or any miscarriage of justice is pointed out. Liaquat Jan & another v. Muhammad Ilyas & others 2022 SCR 534 (G) 2005 SCR 341 ref
  25. — After the order of acquittal by the Court of competent jurisdiction, the accused has a double presumption of innocence— acquittal order cannot be reversed until and unless found perverse, arbitrary or fanciful. Arshad Iqbal v. Muhammad Azad Khan &others 2022 SCR 560 (B) 2014 SCR 442 ref
  26. —An acquittal order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction cannot be interfered with until and unless the same is found perverse, arbitrary and fanciful. Gulzaib Khan v. Azkar Hussain & another 2022 SCR 76 (B)
  27. —Under law until any acquittal order is found perverse, arbitrary and fanciful, that cannot be interfered with. Muhammad Javed  v. Muhammad Jamil & another  2022 SCR 705 (A)
  28. — When an accused is acquitted of the charge then his presumption of innocence becomes double—the acquittal order cannot be interfered with lightly mere on the basis of surmises and conjectures or on the basis of evidence rejected by the Courts below — very strong and cogent evidence is required to interfere in the acquittal order. Muhammad Latif & others v. M. Sadiq & others 2022 SCR 928 (A)
  29. — Until an acquittal order is found perverse and fanciful that cannot be interfered with. Muhammad Latif & others v. M. Sadiq & others 2022 SCR 928 (B) Khalid Mehmood and others vs. Arshad Mehmood and others (Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2010 decided on 14.3.2013), 2004 SCR 140 & 2005 SCR 1 rel.
  30. —Under law until any acquittal order is found perverse, arbitrary and fanciful, that cannot be interfered with. Muhammad Javed  v. Muhammad Jamil & another  2022 SCR 705 (A)
  31. — When an accused is acquitted of the charge then his presumption of innocence becomes double—the acquittal order cannot be interfered with lightly mere on the basis of surmises and conjectures or on the basis of evidence rejected by the Courts below — very strong and cogent evidence is required to interfere in the acquittal order. Muhammad Latif & others v. M. Sadiq & others 2022 SCR 928 (A)
  32. — Until an acquittal order is found perverse and fanciful that cannot be interfered with. Muhammad Latif & others v. M. Sadiq & others 2022 SCR 928 (B) Khalid Mehmood and others vs. Arshad Mehmood and others (Criminal Appeal No.55 of 2010 decided on 14.3.2013), 2004 SCR 140 & 2005 SCR 1 rel.
  33. —Setting aside of acquittal order—principle—for setting aside an acquittal order, there must be some perversity, departure from law, arbitrariness, misreading or non-reading of evidence apparent on the face of the record. To set aside acquittal, extraordinary compelling reasons are required. Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541 (T) 2014 SCR 351 & 2004 SCR 140 Rel
  34. —Every person presumed innocent, unless proven guilty— if an accused secures acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed, reinforced and strengthened. Jahangir Khan & others v. Safia Tanveer & others 2022 SCR 1541 (U)
  35. — appeal against acquittal order — accused who has been acquitted of the charge is credited with two advantages, one; the innocence available to him at the pre-trial stage and the other which is earned by him on the basis of the acquittal order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction Held: acquittal order can only be interfered with when the same is found perverse, arbitrary, whimsical, unreasonable, artificial, ridiculous, shocking in nature, based on misreading of material evidence, highly conjectural or based on surmises unwarranted under law. Mohammad Arif v. Liaqat Ali & others 2023 SCR 199 (A) 2005 SCR 1, 2017 SCR 428, ref.
  36.  — interference with — while dealing with the case in which the acquittal order has been passed, held: the Courts can only interfere with if after appreciation of evidence, the Courts come to the conclusion that the acquittal order is fanciful, perverse, arbitrary and resulted into miscarriage of justice. Ehtesab Bureau v. Fareed Ahmed & others2023 SCR 203 (D) 2009 SCMR 237 ref.
  37.  — law is almost settled on the point that once acquittal order has been passed after due appreciation of evidence, there must be strong and overwhelming reasons to interfere with the same. Held: that the superior Courts have laid down the principle of law in respect of the powers of the Courts to convert the acquittal into conviction. The parameters for interference in the appeal against the acquittal order and conviction are different as in the case of acquittal, the presumption of double innocence of the accused is attached-to order of acquittal. Ehtesab Bureau v. Fareed Ahmed & others2023 SCR 203 (B) 2002 SCMR 713 ref.
  38. — the acquittal order cannot be set-aside in routine, as it is like to get a liberated bird who has flown away towards the limitless space and free air, back into the cage. This liberty is based on sound judicial principles of appreciation of evidence. Held: that it is recognized phenomenon of criminal jurisprudence that until the accused is found guilty, he has to be considered innocent. Further held: it is the duty of the prosecution to bring home the guilt of an accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Further held: benefit of slightest doubt must go to the accused as a matter of right and not grace. Ehtesab Bureau v. Fareed Ahmed & others2023 SCR 203 (C)
  39. — after acquittal an accused enjoys double presumption of innocence — an acquittal order is not subject to interference unless it is proved to be perverse and illegal.  Zulfiqar Khan versus The State & others 2023 SCR 649 (B) 2017 SCR 428 rel.
  40. — When an accused is acquitted of the charge in a criminal case then his presumption of innocence becomes double — the acquittal order cannot be interfered with lightly merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures or on the basis of evidence rejected by Courts below rather very strong and cogent evidence is required to interfere in the acquittal order.Mst. Mehmoona Kousar versus Muhammad Khalil & another 2023 SCR 921 (A) 2005 SCR 1 & 2019 SCR 886 ref  
  41. — when an accused is acquitted of the charge, then his presumption of innocence becomes double, and the acquittal order cannot be interfered with lightly, merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures, rather very strong and cogent evidence is required to interfere with the acquittal order. Mst. Haleema Bibi versus Muhammad Nadim & others 2023 SCR 751 (D) 2019 SCR 886 rel.
  42.  — once an acquittal order is passed, double presumption of innocence is attached with the accused, firstly before the trial and secondly after acquittal. Muhammad Anwar versus Abdul Razzaque & others 2023 SCR 694 (B)            
  43. — an acquittal order can only be interfered with, when it appears perverse, capricious and against settled norms of law and justice. Muhammad Anwar versus  Abdul Razzaque & others 2023 SCR 694 (C) 2018 SCR 661 rel.
error: Content is protected !!