Crl. Acquittal Appeal No. S- 175 of 2017
Muhammad Shahid..
.
.
...
..
..
...Appellant
Versus.
Muhammad Abid and another......
. Respondents
For Hearing of
Main Case.
Mr. Parmanand alias Prem Kumar Advocate for appellant.
Mr. Abdul
Rehman Kolachi, DPG for the State waives notice.
Date of hearing: 22-10-2018
Date of Judgment: 22-10-2018
J U D G M E N T
RASHEED AHMED
SOOMRO J.,
Instant Crl. Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12.09.2017,
passed by learned 1st Civil Judge & J.M-, Rohri in criminal case
No. 22 of 2017, arising out of crime No. 33 of 2016, registered at P.S, Rohri
for offences under sections 337A(i), 337F(i), 337L(ii), 506/2, 504, 148 & 149
PPC, whereby respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge.
2. Facts
leading to disposal of this appeal are that on 26.03.2016 at 10-00 p.m, accused/private
respondent along with absconding accused formed an unlawful assembly by arming
themselves with deadly weapons, committed rioting and in furtherance of their
common object used abusive language, caused injuries to complainant party and
issued threats of dire consequences to the complainant party.
3. Charge was framed against the respondent, to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, prosecution led evidence of prosecution witnesses
and recorded statement of accused in terms of section 342 CrPC and after
hearing the parties vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondent of the charge.
4. Learned counsel for appellant argued that
there was sufficient evidence connecting the private respondent 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 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 the trial court has failed to record any cogent reason.
5. On the
other hand, learned DPG for the State while supporting the impugned judgment
argued that the respondent has rightly been acquitted
by the trial court after appreciating the evidence properly.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for appellant, learned DPG for the State as well as perused
the record of case and have reached to a conclusion that respondent/accused has
rightly been acquitted by the trial court for the reasons that according to PW-
SIP-Shafqat Hussain, who is Investigating Officer of the case, after
registration of FIR, he visited the place of occurrence so also inspected the injuries
of complainant and after recording statements of PWs and local residents
disposed of the case under B-class. He also deposed that there was no mark of injury on
the body of complainant so also neither complainant nor mashir of injury
disclosed about any injury on the body of complainant. Furthermore, there are
glaring contradictions in the evidence of PWs on material points. It is also an
admitted position that neither complainant nor any PWs produced any letter for
treatment or MLC and prosecution has not examined doctor to prove that the complainant
actually sustained injuries, therefore, nothing is
available on record to show that complainant received any injury. Moreover,
PW-4 Ghayas, who claimed to be eyewitness of the incident
has deposed that at the time of alleged incident, he was present inside the house
of complainant, where accused came and used abusive language and close fight
was started between complainant and accused, but he did not know as to whether incident
took place inside or outside the house. He also could not disclose that as to
who saved the complainant while complainant deposed that PWs saved him from the
accused.
7. Under
these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed
to prove guilt of the respondent, as such the trial
court had no option but to acquit the private respondent 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. No illegality or irregularity,
misreading and non-reading could be pointed out by the
learned counsel for the appellant in the judgment impugned warranting
interference by this court.
8. The
Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Haji Paio Khan v. Sher Biaz and others (2009 SCMR 803) has
been pleased to observe as under:
"It needs no reiteration that
when an accused person is acquitted from the charge by a Court of competent
Jurisdiction then, double presumption of innocence is attached to its order,
with which the superior Courts do not interfere unless the impugned order is
arbitrary, capricious, fanciful and against the record".
9. 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-
175 of 2017 being meritless stands dismissed.
JUDGE