Crl. Acquittal Appeal No. S- 12 of 2014
Khush Muhammad Siddiqui.
...
.
..
...Appellant
Versus.
Akhtiar Ahmed and others.
......
. Respondents
For Hearing of
Main Case.
Mr. J.K. Jarwar Advocate for appellant/complainant.
Ms. Farzana Bhatti
Advocate for respondents a/w respondent No.2.
Mr. Abdul
Rehman Kolachi, Deputy P.G for the State.
Date of hearing: 11-11-2019
Date of Judgment: 11-11-2019
J U D G M E N T
RASHEED AHMED SOOMRO J., Learned counsel for the appellant does not press the
instant appeal against respondents No.2&3, while he maintains appeal against
respondent No.4 Abdul Shakeel, whereas, respondent No.1 Akhtiar Ahmed has
already expired during course of proceedings of instant appeal. Accordingly,
instant appeal stands dismissed as not pressed against respondent No.2&3.
2. Instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal is directed
against the judgment dated 06.01.2014, passed by learned Civil Judge & Judicial
Magistrate, Sobhodero at Ranipur in Crl. Case No. 11 of 2013, arising out of Crime
No. 162 of 2012, registered with P.S, A-section, Khairpur for offences under Sections
489-F, 506/2, 342 & 504 PPC, whereby respondents/accused were acquitted of
the charge.
3. Facts leading to disposal of this appeal
are that on 05.11.2010, lady accused Mst. Naseer Bano in furtherance of common
intention with accused Akhtiar and lady accused Mst Imtiaz Begum had
dishonestly issued cheque amounting to Rs. 3,30,000/- dated 20.11.2010 of
Allied Bank to the complainant in consideration of gold ornaments, purchased by
all the accused/private respondents from the complainants shop. It is further alleged that
accused had also issued threats of dire consequences to the complainant. Consequently,
above FIR was lodged on 18.06.2012.
4. Charge was framed against the private respondents, to which they pleaded
not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution led evidence of
prosecution witnesses and recorded statements of accused in terms of section
342 Cr.P.C and after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondents
of the charge.
5. Learned counsel for appellant argued that
there was sufficient evidence connecting the private respondent No.4 with the
commission of offence, but the learned trial court illegally acquitted him of
the charge; that the trial court failed to take into consideration that the
offence is of heinous nature; that respondent No.4 failed to create any dent in
the prosecution case but even then the trial court illegally, unlawfully and
without any justifiable reason acquitted him of the charge and while acquitting
the respondent No.4 the trial Court failed to record any cogent reason.
6. On the
other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 as well as
learned Deputy P.G for the State while supporting the impugned judgment
contended that the respondent No.4 has rightly been acquitted
by the trial Court after appreciating the evidence properly.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.4 as well
as learned Deputy P.G for the State so also as well as perused the record of case and have
reached to a conclusion that respondents/accused have rightly been acquitted by
the trial Court for the reasons that the FIR was lodged with a considerable
delay of 16-months, for which no plausible explanation has been furnished by
the complainant, which itself gives presumption for false implication of the
respondent No.4 with due deliberation and consultation. Moreover, the allegations against the respondent
No.4/accused Abdul Shakoor as per FIR are that when complainant went to police
station for lodgement of FIR, where accused Abdul Shakoor being police
constable met him and disclosed that accused are his relatives and asked the
complainant to wait for few days and assured to get money to him. It is further alleged against him that he issued threats of dire
consequences to the complainant and wrongfully confined him in a private
building, but these allegations against the respondent No.4 are not supported
by the evidence of eyewitness No.2 Wahid Bux, as according to complainant has
not disclosed that P W-2 Wahid Bux was with him when the respondent No.4 issued
him threats of dire consequences so also wrongfully confined him. PW-2
Wahid Bux has also not deposed that he was with his brother/complainant when
respondent No.4 issued him threats of dire consequences so also wrongfully
confined him. Moreover, the allegations against accused/respondents No.1 to 3
are that they purchased golden ornaments from the shop of complainant and
accused Mst. Nazeer Begum issued cheque, against whom the complainant has not
pressed the instant appeal.
8.
It is also settled law that
ordinary scope of acquittal appeal is considerably narrow and limited and
obvious approach for dealing with the appeal against the conviction would be
different and should be distinguished from the appeal against acquittal because
presumption of double innocence of accused is attached to the order of
acquittal. In the recent judgment in the case of Zulfiqar
Ali v. Imtiaz and others (2019 SCMR 1315), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
2. According to the autopsy report, deceased
was brought dead through a police constable and there is nothing on the record
to even obliquely suggest witnesses presence in the hospital; there is no
medico legal report to postulate hypothesis of arrival in the hospital in
injured condition. The witnesses claimed to have come across the deceased and
the assailants per chance while they were on way to Chak No.504/GB. There is a
reference to M/s Zahoor Ahmed and Ali Sher, strangers to the accused as well as
the witnesses, who had first seen the deceased lying critically injured at the
canal bank and it is on the record that they escorted the deceased to the
hospital. Ali Sher was cited as a witness, however,
given up by the complainant. These aspects of the case conjointly lead the
learned Judge-in-Chamber to view the occurrence as being un-witnessed so as to extend benefit of the doubt consequent thereupon.
View taken by the learned Judge is a possible view, structured in evidence
available on the record and as such not open to any legitimate exception. It is
by now well-settled that acquittal once granted cannot
be recalled merely on the possibility of a contra view. Unless, the impugned
view is found on the fringes of impossibility, resulting into miscarriage of justice, freedom cannot be recalled. Criminal
Appeal fails. Appeal dismissed.
9. Under these
circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to
prove guilt of the respondents, as such the trial Court
had no option but to acquit the private respondent No.4 of the charge. The
trial Court after proper appraisal of material available on record and
attending all the legal as well as factual aspects of the case passed a very
exhaustive and well-reasoned judgment. Learned counsel for the appellant / complainant has
not been able to point out any illegality
or irregularity, misreading and non-reading or serious flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
10. In view of above discussions, I am of the
considered view that no case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out, therefore, instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal No. S-
12 of 2014 being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.
JUDGE