2013 PLP 283 (MLD)

NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.

1. Overruled.

2. Granted.

3. Granted subject to all just exceptions.

4. The appellant/complainant Asghar Ali has impugned the judgment dated 23-4-2012 whereby the accused/respondents Ali Gul and Shoukat Ali were acquitted under section 245(1), Cr.P.C. of the charge in connection with Case No.173 of 2011 which was outcome of F.I.R. No.152 of 2011 lodged at Police Station Kamber under sections 457 and 380, P.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the incident of theft was witnessed by the complainant and his brother and they both, during their evidence, corroborated fully to the case of prosecution but the trial Court, considering the minor contradictions, acquitted the accused persons therefore, the impugned judgment cannot sustain as the case of prosecution was proved and the accused were liable to be convicted. Perusal of record reveals that the alleged incident of theft of buffaloes from the house of complainant Asghar Ali at mid night time, took place about two months prior to the lodging of F.I.R. on 20-5-2011. The explanation in respect of such delay was furnished in the F.I.R. that after the theft, committed by the accused persons who were identified and nominated in the F.I.R., nekmards were approached by the complainant and due to the hopes and promises of nekmards for return of the stolen property, the complainant could not lodge the F.I.R. and ultimately, on refusal of the nekmards, complainant arrived at the police station and lodged F.I.R. This explanation for inordinate delay of about two months could not be treated plausible particularly in a case of theft when the names of accused were nominated in the F.I.R., lodged after two months of the alleged incident, therefore, this very ground was sufficient for the trial Court to record the acquittal of the accused persons specially when no recovery of the stolen property was effected in the case. Complainant has also admitted that he did not move any application or complaint to any authority before lodging the F.I.R. The only explanation about the delay as furnished by the complainant in his F.I.R. is that he was kept on false hopes by nekmards who were approached upon by him for return of the stolen property. But, none of those nekmards was examined in this case to corroborate the version of the complainant and even no name of any of the nekmards was cited in the very F.I.R. The complainant during cross-examination also admitted that there was a dispute between the parties over a plot. This does not appear in the very F.I.R. which pertains to the matter of theft only. In view of such circumstances, the trial Court had rightly given weight to the contradictions appeared in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant has rightly pointed out that there are so many defects in the manner under which the judgment was recorded by the trial court but, same are not material to be taken into consideration in this criminal acquittal appeal for which the decision of the trial court is to be considered which however, seems to be proper and legal and the trial court rightly concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt. Such decision/judgment calls for no interference and therefore, this criminal acquittal appeal is dismissed in limine. MWA/A-78/K Appeal dismissed.