2003 PLP 3257 (YLR)

Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 30th April and 7th May, 2003. TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILANI, J.‑‑ This State appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22‑7‑1998 passed by Judge Special Court, Okara vide which having tried of the respondent in case registered vide F.I.R. No.375 of 1996 Police Station Saddar Depalpur on the allegations that on a personal search opium weighing 2 Kg. was recovered from him, he acquitted the appellant by giving benefit of doubt.

2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on 19‑10‑1996 Muhammad Ashraf, S.‑I. P.W.4, was present at Bridge named Mincharian when having seen the police party the respondent tried to flee he was apprehended and the afore‑referred opium was recovered. During trial the prosecution examined four witnesses namely Ahmad, Countable P.W.1, Qasim Ali, Constable P.W.2, Muhammad Nawaz, Constable P.W.3 and Muhammad Ashraf, S.‑I., P.W.4. In the statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant took up the plea of false implication on account of enmity with the police. The learned trial Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that in three investigations the case was found to be false and departmental action was recommended against the police officials to register a case.

3. Learned counsel for the Federal Government impugns the judgment of acquittal on the ground that the same is based on surmises and conjectures, that the prosecution evidence inspires confidence, that there was no reasons why the prosecution witnesses involved against the respondent accused and that the learned trial Court has based its finding of acquittal merely on the opinion of an Investigating Officer which has led to a miscarriage of justice.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the afore referred case is one of the seven cases registered in a period of three days by two police officers; that in three investigations all the cases were found to be false and departmental action was recommended against police officer who registered those cases, that a senior police officer appeared in defence of the respondent in the connected cases.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

6. All the four prosecution witnesses examined in this case are police officers out of which two are the recovery witnesses namely P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.4, Muhammad Ashraf, S.‑I. and the latter investigated the case as well. There is no cavil to the proposition that a police officer is worthy of reliance as much as any other witness provided there is nothing on the record to make his testimony doubtful. It is on the record that the instant case and all the cases registered in a period of three days were investigated by Faizan Safdar A.S.P. and Muhammad Ashraf, P.W.4 conceded before him that he had registered the instant case on the direction of Naseer Ahmed, Inspector and that actually the opium was recovered from the house of one Rashid Ahmad. While appearing in Court although this witness denied having made such a statement before Faizan Safdar, A.S.P. but the said statement made by him was brought on record as Exh.D.B. and this witness was specifically confronted with it. This circumstance is sufficient to cast serious doubt on the entire prosecution case. The respondent stands acquitted after regular trial and that he earns a double presumption of innocence. There is heavy onus on the prosecution to rebut the said presumption. In the facts and circumstances referred to above, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge the onus. We therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. Appeal against acquittal dismissed. H.B.T./S‑721/L