2009 PLP 1062 (MLD)

NAZEER AHMAD GHAZI, J.

This appeal challenges acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sahiwal, vide judgment, dated 14-3-2005 in case registered vide F.I.R. No.I05, dated 15-7-2003 under sections 302/324/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Galla Mandi Sahiwal.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 14-7-2003 at about 8-00 p.m. Zahoor Ahmad accused called Nazir Ahmad P.W. and started giving beating to him. He raised lalkara that he would teach him a lesson for insulting his wife. At that time Mst. Wallan Bibi deceased, Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst. Kausar Parveen were present in the house. On hue and cry, Mst. Wallan deceased, Mst. Nooran Bibi and Mst. Kausar Parveen came out to rescue Nazir Ahmad whereupon Zahoor Ahmad accused gave a Sota blow on the head of Mst. Wallan Bibi. Manzoor Ahmad, Ghafoor Ahmad (Proclaimed Offenders) Shaukat and Khaliq alias Khalid accused armed with Sota caused injury to Mst. Parveen Kausar were also at the spot. Ghafoor accused gave Sota blow on the right ear of Mst. Wallan Bibi. She fell down. Manzoor accused gave Sota blow on the head of Nooran Bibi which hit her on her head. Ghafoor Proclaimed Offender gave Sota blow to Mst. Kousar Parveen which hit her on her head. On hue and cry Khurshid son of Ameer came at the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Then the accused fled away from the place of occurrence, by threatening to the complainant and his family.

3. The motive behind the occurrence is that on the day of occurrence wife of Zahoor Ahmad accused throw dirty water in front of the complainant's house. Nazir Ahmad insulted her. The matter was patched up but inspite of that accused persons attacked, in order to take revenge as they considered their insult.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid acquittal of the respondents/accused, the appellant has filed the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel in support of the appeal against acquittal submits that Khaliq accused-respondent has caused injury to the deceased on her left ear and the complainant Jahangir while appeared in the Court also verified this fact which was further corroborated by Mst. Parveen P.W.3.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. We are afraid that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not borne out from the record as in the F.I.R. it is very clear that Khaliq alias Khalid accused-respondent caused injury on the body of Mst. Parveen Kausar P.W. and has been punished to two years imprisonment. We have noticed that this version was improved at the time of trial by the prosecution and one injury to the deceased on her left ear was attributed to Khaliq accused-respondent. The reasons advanced by the learned trial Court for acquittal of the respondents are cogent, plausible and convincing. It is well-settled law that once a judgment of acquittal is recorded, the accused earns double presumption of innocence, therefore, such judgment cannot be interfered with unless and until strong and exceptional circumstances exist, warranting interference by this Court as laid down in cases of Shahid Abbas v. Shahbaz and others (2008 SCMR 237), State through A.G. N.-W.F.P. v. Mahmood Khan and others (2007 SCMR 1390) and Najaf Saleem v. Lady doctor Tasneem and others (2004 YLR 407) but the instant case is lacking of any such ground. Further the I.O. has also declared Khaliq alias Khalid accused-respondent innocent during investigation. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. Consequently, this appeal has no substance and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./J-16/L Appeal dismissed.