2009 PLP 11 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.

Syed Ghawas Khan appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal under section 417 (2) (A), Cr.P.C. through which he has impugned acquittal of Zamirullah Khan, respondent No.1, recorded by learned Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Buner at Daggar, vide order dated 29-3-2007. The acquittal was pursuant to case F.I.R. No.765 dated 20-9-2005 under sec tions 337-F (6)/337-A(1), P.P.C, Police Station Daggar at Buner.

2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that on 20-9-2005 at 7-30 hours, Syed Ghawas Khan complainant in an injured condition reported the matter to the police to the effect that on the eventful day after performing `Ishraq' prayers in the village mosque, Zamirullah Khan son of Sikandar, resident of Kalpari, told him that he was going for demarcation of the fields and he should follow him for the said purpose. On this, altercation took place between the parties and Syed Ghawas Khan sustained injuries on his finger and elbow of right hand and on the forehead. The occurrence was witnessed by Shad Muhammad Khan, brother and Said Nawab, son of the complainant and Abdul Hadi.

3. The learned trial Court after recording evidence of the prosecution and examining the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C, hearing the learned counsel for the prosecution as well as for defence and learned PP for the State, acquitted the accused-respondent; from the charge levelled against him. Hence the present appeal.

4. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that there was overwhelming evidence on the record to connect the accused-respondent with the Commission of the offence and the minor contradictions in the statements of the P.W. could not be made basis for acquittal of the accused-respondent. Furthermore, it was submitted that the weapon, blood-stained `Rahel' was recovered from the spot.

5. I have gone through the record of the case as well as the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court. Perusal of the record reveals that initially the appellant/ complainant had not explained the nature of weapon of offence in the F.I.R. but later on he made an improvement in his statement that he was hit by the accused with plank `Rahel', as according to him the alleged occurrence took place in the mosque. It is also on the record that initially the appellant had nominated one Abdul Hadi along with Shad Muhammad and Said Nawab to be the witnesses of the occurrence but in his statement before Court he admitted only the presence of Abdul Hadi and it was stated that the brother and son of the complainant were attracted to the spot later on. It was further contradicted by P.W.5, namely, Abdul Hadi that at the time of the offence Said Nawab and Shad Muhammad were not present. No person from the village was present and later on people were attracted to the spot. The witness stated that he had seen no person injuring the appellant. Only altercation took place between the parties. The witness had no relationship with any of the parties. So from the existing evidence on the record no charge was proved against the accused-respondent and the benefit of doubt had been extended to the accused-respondent. The evidence on the record was properly appreciated by learned trial Court and the same warrants no interference by this Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, there is no force in this appeal, which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./184/P Appeal dismissed.