2020 PLP 125 (YLRN)

MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that Trial Court has not appreciated evidence adduced before it and has wrongly acquitted respondents on the pretext that their counsel was not in attendance before Trial Court even brief was held while it was not considered. He further submits that appellant and his witnesses had also, moved application to Member Inspection Team Sindh High Court Karachi against Presiding Officer and copy of same has also been filed with appeal at page 55 of Court file. He further admits that in all 04 witnesses were examined before Trial Court but PW Nazeer Ahmed Almani who was the star witness as well mashir and eye-witness of the case was not examined hence he submits that case be remanded to Trial Court for examination of his witnesses and they are ready to produce PW Nazeer Ahmed for his evidence. He further submits that appellant / complainant is tenant of one Suneel Kumar and such civil proceedings are pending in between Suneel Kumar and respondent Ahmed Bux and others. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. opposes the appeal and supports the impugned judgment on the pretext that there is no illegality or infirmity in impugned judgment which may warrant interference by this Court. He has focused upon Paras-12 and 13 of impugned judgment which reads as under:- "

12. Secondly, now I take up the medical evidence as corroborative evidence. It is well settled that corroborative evidence is meant to test the veracity of ocular evidence both corroborative and ocular testimony is to be read together and not in isolation. Therefore, I hereby discuss medical evidence brought on record together with ocular testimony of incident. The complainant stated that accused Ahmed Bux caused him butt of rifle on his head and other accused persons caused him kicks and fists, Now MLO Dr. Bashir Ahmed Panhwar examined before this court he stated that injured Sohail Ahmed came to him at about 0720 hours he examined him and found two injuries, injuries were three hours old and treated as fresh injuries he during cross-examination stated that " These injuries can be self suffered".

13. I would like to discuss the testimony of complainant and PW/Masher, complainant stated that he came at Hospital at about 0715 hours , PW/Mashir stated that they came at hospital at about 0630 hours but MLO stated that injured came to him at about 0720 hours, complainant stated that he remained at about two hours at Hospital. PW/Masher stated that complainant/injured remained 02/03 hours at hospital but MLO stated that injured remained only 10 minuts and he treated him as O.P.D patient The perusal of memo of injuries is showing that police has examined complainant after registration of FIR as time of registration of FIR is 2200 hours but memo was prepare at about 2230 to 2250 hours which is showing that complainant received one injury on his head. Furthermore, the nature of injuries is simple and all these contradictions has made the case of prosecution doubtful." I have heard learned counsel for appellant as well D.P.G and have gone through material made available before me on record. Admittedly, parties are entangled with each other over rent issue and as far as instant case is concerned which rests upon alleged injuries for which medical evidence is not in consonance with ocular version as doctor himself has deposed that injuries allegedly sustained by injured can be presumed to be self suffered. It is settled law that after getting acquittal accused always earns double presumption of his innocence and Superior Courts have avoided to interfere with acquittal judgments. Reliance can be placed upon case of Muhammad Asghar and another v. The State (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 301). There is no cavil with the legal proposition that an acquittal appeal stands on a different footings than an appeal against conviction. In acquittal appeal, the Superior Courts generally do not interfere with unless they find that miscarriage of justice has taken place. The factum that there can be a contrary view on re-appraisal of the evidence by the Court hearing acquittal appeal simpliciter would not be sufficient to interfere with acquittal judgment. In view of above legal position, it appears that instant appeal has wrongly been filed, even the basic ingredients for initiating appeal against acquittal as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 11) are also lacking in this case. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity which may warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly and in view of above, instant appeal against acquittal is dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. SA/S-153/Sindh Appeal dismissed.