2008 PLP 1390 (YLR)

The name of the learned counsel for the appellant stands duly reflected in the cause-list issued for today but neither the appellant nor his learned counsel has bothered to enter appearance so as to prosecute this appeal. It, thus, appears that the appellant and his learned counsel have opted not to avail of an opportunity of hearing contemplated by the provisions of section 421, Cr.P.C. This appeal against acquittal is hanging fire for the last about two years and ever since the hearing of this appeal is being adjourned from date to date mainly for reasons attributable to the appellant.

2. Through this appeal the appellant has called in question the judgment dated 19-7-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian, District Gujrat whereby respondent No.1 was acquitted of the charge in case F.I.R. No.38 registered at Police Station Kakrali, District Gujrat on 14-2-2001 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. 3.. After going through the memorandum of this appeal, the record of this case which has already been requisitioned by this Court and the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court we have straightaway observed that the occurrence in this case had taken place during the dead of night and according to the F.I.R. the culprits perpetrating the alleged offence had remained unidentified. The name of respondent No.1 had been introduced in this case through a supplementary statement made by the complainant. During the trial the prosecution had produced five different categories of evidence against respondent No.1, i.e. ocular account, recovery of gun, extra-judicial confession, medical and Wajtakkar evidence. The ocular account was furnished by Muhammad Rafiq (P.W.125) who was not only related to the deceased but was not a natural witness and the reason stated by him for his presence at the spot at the relevant time was found by the learned trial Court to be utterly I unacceptable. He had made many improvements during his statement made before the learned trial Court and he had made a belated statement before the police. He had failed to inspire the confidence of the learned trial Court. The Wajtakkar evidence was provided by Sabir Hussain (P.W.13) and he was found to be most unnatural and unbelievable and the learned trial Court had decided to discard his testimony. The alleged recovery of a gun from the custody of respondent No.1 was found by the learned trial Court to be legally inconsequential because the said gun was never matched with the crime-empty recovered from the spot. The extra-judicial confession had been made by some co-accused of respondent No.1 and not by respondent No.1 himself. The medical evidence had squarely contradicted the time of occurrence stated by the eye-witnesses. In these circumstances the learned trial Court had concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondent No. 1 beyond reasonable doubt. In the above mentioned peculiar circumstances of this case we have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the conclusion of the learned trial Court vis-a-vis respondent No.1 and this appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed under section 421, Cr.P.C. N.H.Q./M-601/L Appeal dismissed.