IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 170 of 2016

Seema Zaheer…....………...……………………..……………….….Appellant

Versus

XIth Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate,

Karachi Central and 02 others……………..…………………....Respondents

Date of Hearing:- 27.02.2017

Appellant in person

Mr. Ali Haider Saleem, APG

J U D G M E N T

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: The appellant has filed instant criminal acquittal appeal as she felt herself aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.03.2016 passed by learned XIth Judicial Magistrate, Karachi Central, whereby respondent No.2 and 3 were acquitted from the charge of Case No.14 of 2015.

2. The facts as unfolded in FIR No.256/2014 registered under Section 506-II/34 PPC at PS Taimuria, Karachi, are that the appellant/ complainant married with one Zaheeruddin resident of House No.A-112, Block-M, North Nazimabad, Karachi on 02.02.2012. Her husband was a Dentist and he was murdered on 19.12.2013. She was his second wife as he was already married to one Zareen whom he had allegedly divorced. After death of the complainant’s husband, his first wife took over possession of his house and she alongwith her two sons (respondent No.2 and 3) kicked out the complainant from the said house after beating her during Iddat period. The complainant locked the door of room and went to her parents’ house but the said first wife broke open the lock and kept all her valuable articles including gold jewellary, cash and important documents with her and loaded the left over articles on a Suzuki pick up and sent them to her parents’ home through one Salam and two other unknown persons. Said persons tried to unload the articles but she refused to take them. On 12.05.2014 at about 0800 hours, first wife of her husband namely Zareen alongwith her sons Zohaib and Nasir i.e., respondent No.2 and 3 and her elder brother Waseem duly armed with TT pistols extended threats of murder and lodging false cases. Accordingly FIR was lodged against both respondents regarding extending threats.

3. Subsequently, the charge was framed against accused persons i.e., respondent No.2 and 3 for committing offence under Section 506-B/34 PPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On account of their pleas, the trial court commenced trial and examined all witnesses including complainant. Statements of accused persons (respondent No.2 and 3) were also recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C., and after hearing learned Prosecutor and learned defense counsel, the trial court came to the conclusion that the point framed regarding commission of offence was not proved. Resultantly, accused persons were acquitted from the charge.

4. The appellant in person appeared and made her submissions. It is her contention that learned trial court has not considered her evidence and that of her witness. According to her, both accused who are sons of her late husband from his first wife are desperate persons. She contended that both accused extended threats of murder to her and her parents while they were armed with deadly weapons. According to her, even after acquittal they are still threatening the complainant for dire consequences.

5. Learned APG submitted that impugned judgment is proper and the State is not willing to oppose the same.

6. I have heard the arguments and gone through the material placed before me. In the instant matter although first wife of the appellant’s husband as well as her brother and her two sons were nominated but the prosecution only sent up respondent No.2 and 3 for trial. It was opined by the prosecution that no creditable evidence is available against other two persons. In the evidence recorded by the trial court, the complainant has levelled allegations against the respondent No.2 and 3, their mother and their maternal uncle that they came outside her parents’ house when only respondent No.2 Zohaib was armed with pistol and he threatened her that why she was not taking back household articles and thereafter Zohaib and Nasir respondent No.2 and 3 both threatened the appellant to kill her as her husband was killed. It is worth noting that no private witness from neighbourhood was produced for examination before the trial court except a woman who stated that she was residing in a nearby house. She is the witness of earlier affairs of the incident when household articles were brought at about 11.00 or 11.30 a.m. and returned back. However, for second episode which has triggered criminal case, she is not eye-witness but incident was allegedly reported to her from mother of the complainant as such her evidence comes under the category of hearsay evidence and not reliable.

7. Other witness is mother of the complainant who is an interested witness and she had stated that husband of her daughter died due to heart attack and she also stated that she was using wheel chair since last two years. Under these circumstances, deposition of this witness is also doubtful.

8. In fact the entire episode appears to be a counter blast in respect of dispossessing the appellant from house of her husband after his death. Evidence recorded before the trial court is shaky on the vital points. Only a simple threat does not amount to criminal intimidation as defined under Section 506-B PPC. It is necessary to attract penal section of 506 PPC unless such threat should cause alarm to the complainant party. It is also necessary that the threat must be accompanied with some overt act due to which such immediate alarm or danger to life of the complainant party is conceivable. I am of the view that in entire evidence, no overt act to cause alarm in respect of life is evident. It is also important that one of respondents was shown to be armed with pistol but no such recovery was affected from him.

9. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the judgment of trial court is within the four corners of law. Neither the appellant could point out nor have I traced any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment of the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

J U D G E