2012 PLP 1321 (MLD)

MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.

Muhammad Gulzar appellant after having dissatisfied with order of acquittal dated 8-11-2008 passed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Talagang in a case registered vide F.I.R. No. 101 dated 10-8-2001 under section 337-F(i)(iv)/34, P.P.C. at Police Station, Talagang, whereby respondents Adalat Hussain, Meher Khan and Amir Iqbal were acquitted of the charge allegedly for causing injuries to P.W.1 Muhammad Gulzar, appellant-complainant and P.W.2. Muhammad Razzaq, has made a rap at the portal of this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.1 Muhammad Gulzar, the complainant and P.W.2 Muhammad Razzaq both received grievous injuries during the incident; their testimony was supported by P.W.3 Manzoor Hussain, an eye-witness; the statement of P.W.5 Dr. Abdul Samad was also corroborated by the ocular account; no harmonious element in between the ocular and the medical evidence figures; on the flimsy, fanciful and unsound reasons, the impugned judgment was handed down and the same is liable to be reversed to conviction and sentence in accordance with law.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has resisted the arguments by submitting that the impugned judgment is well reasoned; the learned trial court has held that motive has not been proved and when the right hand of P.W.1 Muhammad Gulzar, the complainant was found fractured, then how he could sign his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C; in order to prove the nature of the injuries Radiologist was not examined; more so, much water has flown under the bridges since 2001 to 2011, therefore, on the basis of doctrine of impossibility, it is legitimately expedient not to reverse the judgment of acquittal into conviction.

4. Learned Law Officer has remained mute as to the arguments of this case.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. It is a legal parlance that every accused is blue eyed child of law and is presumed to be innocent unless and until he is held guilty by due course of law. Maxim exists that error in acquittal is better than the error in conviction and more so, after yielding acquittal dual presumption of innocence is attached with an accused. Under these guidelines, the record has been perused and arguments have been appreciated. In order to prove the nature of injuries Radiologist has not been produced by the prosecution and the examining doctor has relied upon the report of the Radiologist. In this way, nature of injuries i.e. fracture has not been legitimately proved. Now implication of section 337-F(i), P.P.C. remains in the field. In this way, when the respondents at one stage during the proceedings had paid a visit behind the bars and when much water has flown under the bridges since 2001 to 2011, in these circumstances, impossibility exists to reverse the order of acquittal into conviction. Even otherwise, no perversity, illegality and incorrectness have been found in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the instant appeal being devoid of force is dismissed. M.W.A./M-31/L Appeal dismissed.