2026 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Najam-ud-Din Mengal, J.

Through this Criminal Acquittal Appeal the appellant/complainant has challenged the validity of judgment dated 31.07.2025, (the impugned judgment ), passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Killa Abdullah (the trial Court ), whereby the accused/respondents Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted of the charge.

2. Allegations against the accused/respondents Nos.1 and 2, as per FIR No.16 of 2023 dated 07.09.2023, under Sections 337-F, 504, 506, 34 P.P.C, registered with Levies Thana Dobandi, district Killa Abdullah are that on the fateful day at about 10:30 a.m. at Killi Haji Shaikh Muhammad Doriwar, they along with Kaleemullah (absconding accused) assaulted upon the complainant s son namely Bakht Muhammad and caused him injuries with knife and dandas.

3. In pursuance of above FIR, investigation of the case was conducted and thereof, challan was submitted in the trial Court. On receipt of challan, the trial Court indicted the charge to respondents (accused), who refuted the same, thus, the prosecution during trial produced six (6) witnesses. The respondents (accused) in their statements recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C denied the allegations leveled against them, however, neither they opted to record their statements on oath as envisaged under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C nor produced evidence in their defence. On conclusion of trial and after hearing arguments, the trial Court acquitted the respondents (accused) from the charge, whereafter the instant acquittal appeal has been filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

5. It is an admitted fact that the appellant is complainant of the case, who has not received any injury in the alleged incident. The complainant being father of the injured, has filed the instant appeal. The following point is to be determined in the instant appeal. As to whether father of the injured falls within the definition of an aggrieved person and as to whether appeal can be filed by a person other than the injured in case of injury?

6. The definition of an aggrieved person for the purpose of appeal against acquittal in hurt cases had been attended in the case of Nazeer Ahmed v. Abid Ahmed and another 2014 PCr.LJ 914, wherein it was observed as under: Before considering the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, reference is made to the Black s Law Dictionary 4th-Edition at page 87 which defines the term aggrieved as under: AGGRIEVED having suffered loss or injury: damnified: injured. While aggrieved party is defined as: AGGRIEVED PARTY: One whose legal right is invaded by an act, complained of or whose pecuniary interest is directly affected by a decree or judgment. The word aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property right; or the imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation. The definition of a person aggrieved for the purpose of appeal against acquittal in hurt cases had come before this Court in Mir Gul s case reported in 1999 PCr.LJ 1507, wherein a larger Bench was constituted to examine the identical proposition and followed question was framed. Whether in presence of injured/victim the complainant/informer could be termed as the person aggrieved within the provision of section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. While dealing with the proposition the law was laid down and a person aggrieved is defined with following observations: In order to further elaborate this proposition reference to the definitions of Wali under section 299, Clause (m) P.P.C would not be out of context according to which Wali means a person entitled to claim Qisas. Similarly section 337-O, P.P.C. defines Wali in case of hurt according to which Wali shall be victim provided that if the victim is a minor or insane, his right of Qisas shall be exercised by his father or paternal grandfather howsoever high and the heirs of the victim if the later dies before the execution of Qisas and the Government in absence of the victim or the heirs of the victim. Thus, according to plain language of this section as well in the case of hurt to a victim, status of Wali under the Islamic Law has been given as such applying the principle of internal aid to interpret a statute, by making reference to different provisions under the same law, i.e. section 345(2), Cr.P.C and seeking help from section 337-O, P.P.C. we are inclined to hold that under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. the victim being a person aggrieved would have a right to file appeal as far as the informer and anyone else even being the heir of victim would not be competent to file appeal in the case of hurt. Thus, for the foregoing reasons above question is answered as follows: Appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. in a hurt case defined by the P.P.C, and tried by the Courts constituted under Criminal Procedure Code shall be competent by a person who has been hurt, and if he is a minor or insane then appeal will be competent on his behalf by his father and grandfather or a paternal grandfather howsoever high he may be, if he (convict)dies for any other reason before final decision of the hurt case then appeal would be competent by his legal heirs.

7. In the instant case the alleged injured Bakht Muhammad is neither minor nor insane. In view of the judgment supra the appellant does not fall within the definition of an aggrieved person .

8. Besides, perusal of FIR reveals that the occurrence has taken place on 07.09.2023 at about 10:30 a.m., whereas the matter was reported to the Levies on 13.09.2023 at about 02:00 p.m. Admittedly, there is a delay of about six days and three hours in lodging of FIR, for which no explanation has been rendered by the prosecution, whereas, the inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and the Levies Thana is about three Kilometer. The inordinate and unexplained delay of about six days and three hours in lodging FIR by the complainant has created serious doubt about genuineness of the story set up by the prosecution with sole object and ulterior motive to get the respondents convicted. Thus, the said report lost its evidentiary value. In this regard, reliance can be placed to the case titled as Safdar Ali vs The State 2025 S C M R 1437, wherein it has been held that: The inexplicable delay in filing the FIR raises suspicion and undermines the credibility of the prosecution's narrative. It is imperative that the police are provided with early information regarding the crime in order to prevent criticism of the report as a result of consultation, deliberation and manipulation.

9. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, it is settled law that the medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the ocular account with regard to receipt of injury(s), nature of the injury(s), kind of weapon used in the commission of offence, but not able to identify the assailant(s). In this regard, reliance can be placed to the case of Muhammad Tasweer v. Hafiz Zulqarnain and 2 others, PLD 2009 SC

53. Furthermore, per the MLC (Ex-P/5-A) the injured was brought to the hospital on 07.09.2023 and on the same date he was discharged, but contradictorily, PW-2 Naimatullah brother of the alleged injured, in reply to question No.30 stated that the treatment of injured continued for 4/5 days and they have been discharged after 10/12 days.

10. Moreover, after acquittal the respondents (accused) attain double presumption of innocence. Reliance is placed on the case titles as Al-Haaj Malik Muhammad Ashraf v. Javed Akhtar and another (2025 SCMR 787), wherein it has been held that:

7. It is a well-settled principle that an acquitted accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence. An appellate court should exercise restraint in overturning an acquittal unless the judgment is manifestly perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from a glaring misreading or nonreading of material evidence, which is not evident in the present case. For the foregoing discussion, the instant appeal bears no merits, therefore, the same stands dismissed in limine. JK/142/Bal. Appeal dismissed.