2001 PLP 3092 (YLR)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 337‑A(i)/ 337‑F(i)/ 354‑A1452‑‑ Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2)‑‑‑Petition for special leave to appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Trial Court had found the complaint having been lodged by the complainant to avenge the previous enmity which fact was supported by the record‑‑ Impugned judgment had covered all the facts and circumstances of the case‑‑‑Previous long standing litigation both civil and criminal was pending between the parties‑‑‑Evidence led by the complainant was not sufficient to link the accused with the commission of the offence‑‑‑Witnesses being interested could falsely implicate the accused in the case in order to pressurize them to settle the dispute according, to their wishes‑‑‑Complainant had admitted to have not seen the occurrence and he could not be relied upon ‑‑‑Medical evidence also did not support the allegations levelled by the complainant‑‑‑Judgment of acquittal was based on sound reasons and the same did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity‑‑‑Possibility of false involvement of accused in the case could not be ruled out‑‑‑Petition was dismissed in circum stances. Ch. Muhammad Jehanzeb Wahla for Petitioner. Through this Criminal P.S.L.A., the petitioner seeks setting aside of‑judgment, dated 20‑7‑2001 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, who has dismissed the complaint of the petitioner and acquitted the respondents of the charge levelled against them.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a private complaint against the respondents Nos.1 to 4 for offence under sections 337‑A(i), 337‑F(i), 354‑A, 452, P.P.C. stating therein that on 9‑4‑1997, respondent No.3 entered into the Haveli of the petitioner and gave beating to his wife Mst. Sughra. The next day the petitioner called his father‑in‑law, namely, Rehmat and his brother‑in‑law, Abdul Razzaq. On 11‑4 1997 at about 12‑00 noon, the respondents Nos. l to 4 while carrying Sotas in their hands entered into the Haveli of the petitioner and Rehmat Ali and made a Lalkara whereupon the respondents Nos.2 to 4 started giving beating to the wife of the petitioner Mst. Sughra and dragged her outside the Haveli. Respondent No.3 torn the shirt and landed fist blows on her chest whereas respondent No.2 broke her shalwar string and made her naked then respondents Nos.2 to 4 pulled her legs upward and respondent No.3 gave Danda blows to her. Subsequently the complaint was filed which was dismissed by the learned trial Judge. Hence this Cr.P.S.D.A.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment passed by the trial Court has been based on surmises and conjectures and the same is not maintainable in the eyes of law. P.Ws. have fully corroborated the complaint and it is supported by the statement of doctor i.e. P.W.4, who found as many as seven injuries on person of the injured P.W. He further contends that the trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the complainant has succeeded in proving case against the respondents and the trial Judge has caused grave miscarriage of justice. The judgment is not supported by the evidence on the record and is liable to be set aside and the respondents are liable to be convicted.

4. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. The impugned judgment covers all the facts and circumstances of this case and it has been found by the trial Court that the complainant has lodged this complaint in order to avenge the previous enmity. This fact is supported by the record due to the cross‑examination and oral account. P.W.1 has admitted that Rehmat Ali is aged about 70 years, Rafique is his son‑in‑law and Seema Bibi, respondent No.4 is his wife. It was also admitted that Sughra Bibi, the victim is niece of Rehmat Ali, respondent No.1. He also admitted in cross‑examination that land owned by Rehmat Ali is being cultivated by Muhammad Rafique‑respondent. It is also admitted that in Khasra No.360 land measuring 8 Kanals, 8 Marlas is divided equally by him and respondent Relimat Ali. It is denied by the complainant that the entries in Khasra Girdawari were made with his connivance by Patwari. However, it is denied that he has destroyed ' Loosan' sown by Rehmat Ali in his land. However, he has admitted the Criminal Case No.401 of 1996 under sections 440/148/149, P.P.C. with Police Station Pattoki and trial of the said case pending before the Judicial Magistrate at Pattoki. It is also admitted that he transferred the land in favour of his wife through gift on 31‑10‑1996 which has been challenged by Rehmat Ali, respondent through an appeal before the Collector, Pattoki. However, it was admitted that the possession has been taken by the respondent but no case has been got lodged by him against taking of possession. It is admitted by the complainant that he filed writ petition in the High Court on 3‑12‑1996 and levelled allegations in the said writ petition that Sughra Bibi wife/victim in this case had 'been given Sota blow as a result whereof miscarriage of his wife took place. The medical certificate was produced but it was not accepted by this Court and the writ petition was dismissed. He again filed writ petition on 14‑5‑1998 in which direction was issued that a private complaint may be filed and writ petition was dismissed. However, he has denied that the Investigating Offices said in his opinion that no occurrence has taken place. He also admitted that Hanif P.W. was his 'Phuphi Zad' and Muhammad Ali P.W. was his neighbour and denied the dispute pending between him and respondents but P. Ws.2 and 3 have also made statement which shows that the previous long‑standing litigation is pending between the parties and not only civil litigation is pending but criminal case has also been registered against complainant, hence evidence produced by the complainant has to be seen with due care and caution. The statements of the witnesses are not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime in question. The witnesses can be said as interested witnesses and they can falsely implicate the respondents in this case in order to pressurize them to settle the dispute according to their wishes. The most important fact in this case is that earlier complainant filed writ petition in which allegations were levelled that the injuries have been caused to his wife which had resulted in her miscarriage. The medical certificate could not be produced according to the complainant and no direction was issued for the registration of case. Now story has been introduced to make a case of applicability of section 354, Cr.P.C. which became the basis of trial of the case by the Sessions Court. After the bare perusal pf the cross‑examination it is crystal clear that the complainant is not a witness to be relied upon. This sentence shows that the complainant had not seen the occurrence whereas he has admitted that he was not present on 11‑4‑1997 when the injuries were inflicted to his wife. Hence the statement of the complainant is of no avail to the prosecution whereas it has damaged the prosecution case and has made out the case for acquittal of the respondents. Mst. Sughra has also admitted the previous litigation between the parties. Filing of writ petition has also been accepted and the levelling of allegations for miscarriage is also admitted. She has also admitted that her husband had also not seen the occurrence. I have also noticed that the doctor‑P.W.4 who medically examined the victim/Mst. Sughra found only abrasions, swelling and contusions. All the injuries were Shajja Khafifa except the injury Nos. 4, 6 and 7, which were Damiyah and all the injuries were caused by blunt weapon. Injuries do not support the allegations levelled by the complainant against the respondents. After the perusal of the medical report case of minor nature has been made out but I am not inclined to set aside the judgment of trial Court as the same is based on sound reasonings and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the learned trial Judge in passing the judgment of acquittal. The possibility of respondents' false involvement in this case cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case for setting aside of the judgment of trial Court. Hence this petition has no merits and the same is dismissed. N.H.Q./M‑843/L Petition dismissed,