2014 PLP 374 (YLR)

SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD KHAN, J.

The Supra titled appeal has been directed against the judgment of Additional Tehsil Criminal Court No.II Kotli dated 3-11-2011, whereby the said Court acquitted the accused-respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt.

2. The precise facts forming the background of the instant appeal are that a case under sections 447, 427, 109/34, A.P.C. and 14, EHA was registered against the accused-respondents at Police Station Nar on 6-5-2008 on the complaint of Muhammad Anayat. The averments of F.I.R. need not to be reiterated because the same have sufficiently been incorporated by the trial Court in the impugned judgment.

3. After registration of the case, the accused-respondents were apprehended by the police. After usual investigation, a challan was submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction on 2-6-2008. The accused-respondents during their examination under section 242, Cr.P.C. pleaded not guilty and opted for the trial of the case. The trial Court directed the prosecution to produce evidence. The prosecution produced five witnesses out of six witnesses in support of its case.

4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, an opportunity was provided to the accused-respondents under section 342, Cr.P.C. to furnish their explanation about the evidence and all the circumstances appearing against them. The accused-respondents pleaded that they have falsely been involved in the case. They produced evidence in defence and also recorded their statement on Oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.

5. The trial Court after hearing the parties acquitted the accused-respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt vide its judgment dated 3-11-2011, hence this appeal.

6. Ch. Mehboob Ellahi, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court committed severe error while recording the impugned judgment. The learned counsel further contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, but the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true perspective. It was further argued that there was sufficient-evidence available on record to establish that the offence was committed by the respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that eye-witnesses of the occurrence fully supported the prosecution version. He submitted that there is complete unity among the witnesses and there is no contradiction between them. Finally, the learned counsel prayed that by accepting the appeal, the impugned judgment may be set aside and the accused-respondents may be sentenced under law. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel cited the following case-law:-- (1) 1992 SCR 299; (2) 2003 MLD 1774 (3) 2003 YLR 102 (4) 2005 PCr.LJ 464

7. Conversely, Raja Tabraiz Iqbal, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents argued that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel further contended that there is lot of contradiction among the witnesses of the prosecution and the prosecution has badly failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond any shadow of doubt. Finally, the learned counsel contended that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in a judicial fashion and arrived at correct decision, therefore the same may be allowed to stand.

8. The learned A.A.-G., appearing on behalf of the State fully supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost care.

10. In acquittal appeals, the following are the fundamental rules which should be kept in view:-- Firstly, there is presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which has to be kept in mind, especially when the accused has been acquitted by the Court below; Secondly, if two views of the matter are possible, the view favourable to the accused should be taken; Thirdly, in case of acquittal by the trial Judge, the appellate Court should take into account the fact that the trial Judge had the advantage of looking at the demeanour of the accused; and Fourthly, if the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, the doubt should, however, be reasonable and should be such which rational thinking men will reasonably, honestly and conscientiously entertain and not the doubt of a timid mind which fights shy, though unwittingly it may be, or is afraid of the logical consequences; if that benefit was not given.

11. To prove its case, the prosecution produced as many as five witnesses out of which two P.Ws. namely Amjid Ali and Nazakat Ali were stated to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It is pertinent to note here that the P.W.2 Amjid contradicts the prosecution story, while the P.W.3, Nazakat failed to record his statement in support of prosecution versions, which casts a serious doubt upon the prosecution story. It may also be stated here that the complainant and the accused-respondents are the joint owner of alleged land, however, according to the statement of prosecution witness No.4 Muhammad Farooq (Patwari Halqa) the complainant is not the owner of the disputed land. In cross-examination, he deposed that the complainant is not the owner of land comprising Khasra No.1149. The relevant caption of his statement reads as under:-- It will not be out of place to mention here that, in such like cases, the statement of the Patwari is very much important and this statement of aforesaid witness create serious doubt and the same always goes in favour of the accused.

12. It is by now settled principle of law that in a case of acquittal, an accused carries double presumption of innocence, one on the general principle of law that an accused person is innocent until and unless he is proved guilty, and other presumption originate from the order of acquittal passed in favour of an accused.

13. In the present case, the prosecution has badly failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents beyond any shadow of doubt and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record. No illegality or irregularity having been found in the impugned judgment, therefore the same is allowed stand. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant has no relevancy with the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore need not to be discussed. For the reasons listed above, finding no force in this appeal, it hereby dismissed. HBT/2/Sh.C.(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.