2018 PLP 213 (YLRN)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

The instant criminal appeal bearing No. 27/2015 has been filed before this Court challenging the legality and propriety of the judgment of learned trial Court i.e Sessions Judge Diamer dated 31-08-2015, whereby the respondents were acquitted from the charges under section 302/109/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 17/2013 of Police Station Thore.

2. The complainant Abdul Rauf being aggrieved from the order/judgment of trial Court has filed appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. The appeal was filed in this Court on 30-09-2015, which was placed before a division bench of this Court on 22-10-2015. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. A perusal of order sheets from 24-11-2015 to 03-05-2017 reflects that 18 adjournments were granted and the report of process server shows that the respondents have abandoned the area and have shifted to down country at some unknown place. Due to their non-availability of the Registrar of this Court placed the case before this Court for further orders.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant Raja Zia-ur-Rehman, Advocate was called in Court, who stated at bar that he has withdrawn from the prosecution of the case as the complainant after filing the instant appeal has not turned up till today.

4. Since the appeal was lingering on for about last 2 years, therefore, we decided to dispose of the same on merits after examining the available record.

5. As evident from the record, the complainant did not charge any one for murder of his son as evident from Ex. PW-2/A. It is also on record that on the next day of occurrence complainant Abdul Rauf nominated 7 persons namely Ghareeb Shah, Peer Wali, Juma Mir, Haroon Shah, Dilbar and Narang Shah for murder of his son on 11-08-2013. The complainant again submitted an application to SHO Police Station, Thore charging the present respondents/accused. In order to prove the charge prosecution examined 9 PWs and closed its case. The accused were examined under section 342 Cr.P.C. on 02-06-2015.

6. The learned Trial Court after scanning the entire evidence announced the verdict of acquittal in favour of respondents on 31-08-2015. The main reasons as evident from the judgment of the trial Court, which prevailed with the learned trial Court were that the two alleged eye-witnesses namely Shah Faisal and Zahoor, who are closely related to the complainant stated in their statements that on the day of occurrence early in the morning, they saw present respondents alighting from the roof of the complainant but as observed by the trial Court, their statements were recorded by the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. after one month of the occurrence and that too without any plausible explanation. Now it is settled proposition of law that late recording of statements are to be ruled out of consideration, until and unless there are exceptional circumstances to justify the delay. We scanned whole of evidence and we are convinced that the complainant was playing a game of hide and seek with the investigation agencies. The complainant as stated supra did not charge any one initially. Later on next day he charged 7 persons and third time be nominated the present respondents in the case. It cannot be digested easily that two close relatives of complainant i.e. Shah Faisal and Zahoor, if saw the occurrence did not open their mouth either before complainant or before police over a period of one month.

7. We see no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court after due application of mind, which is accordingly upheld and the appeal filed by the complainant against the respondents is dismissed being meritless. HBT/206/GB Appeal dismissed.