1999 PLP 749 (MLD)

Complainant/appellant has assailed Judgment dated 6-2-1997 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandhkot acquitting accused Hassan son of Amin Bangwar,

2. Farid son of Ali Bux Bangwar,

3. Gulab son of Harro Bangwar from charge arising out of Crime No.48 of 1994 under sections 324, 148, 149 P.P.C. recorded at P.S Buxapur, while convicting accused Ahmed son of Madad Bangwar. The case of prosecution as alleged in the F.I.R. is that about one and half years ago one Madad was murdered in which the complainant, his brother Horan and relatives were implicated and the said case was still pending. The relatives of deceased Madad were extending threats time and again that they would take revenge of the murder of deceased Madad. On 22-5-1984 at 11 a.m. the complainant and his brother Horan were grazing their cattle and his uncle Bhaji was preparing the land when accused Ahmed and Hassan armed with guns and Mehar, Farid and Gulab with hatchets came there and challenged the complainant party that they would not spare them, by saying so accused Ahmed and Hassu fired at complainant party, which hit the complainant, who raised cries and fell down. His cries attracted uncle of complainant Bhaji, who came running and saw the accused raising slogans and saying that they took revenge of the murder of deceased Madad and fired in the air. Then complainant was taken by Horan and Bhaji to PS where he lodged report and after usual investigation they were challaned. The prosecution in support of its case examined complainant Bahrain as Exh.4, he produced F.I.R. as Exh.5, witnesses Horan and Bhaji were examined as Exhs.6 and 7, Mashir Ghulam as Exh.8, who produced the Mashirnama of injuries, place of incident, arrest and recovery of hatchet as Exhs.9 to

11. Dr. Muhammad Kambeer medical officer Taluka Hospital, Kandhkot was examined as Exh.13 and he produced his medical certificate as Exh.14. Investigating Officer S.H.O. Aftab Ahmed Halepota was not examined although coercive process was issued. The accused persons in their statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied all allegations and implicated in this case The learned trial Court ruled that the complainant sustained the injuries which were caused by fire arm and since the fire arm injuries were attributed to accused Ahmed, who was therefore convicted while the other 3 accused were acquitted. The trial Court further held that other 3 accused persons were not implicated and, therefore giving them benefit of doubt acquitted them. The precise language used by the trial Court in the order is as follows:-- "As regards the remaining accused are concerned, it is alleged that accused Hassan fired in air and accused Gulab and Farid were standing there with hatchets and no any oven act had been assigned to them and only their presence have been shown at the place on incident. It is trend in this area that number of accused is being exaggerated alongwith real accused in order to involve/harass them therefore benefit of doubt is given to them and they are acquitted." In a criminal acquittal appeal unless real substantial and glaring in justice has been done during the trial resulting in the acquittal of accused, the appellate Court in the ordinary circumstances would not interfere in the order/judgment resulting in acquittal of accused after regular trial, as the trial Court records judgment while appreciating the evidence of witnesses who appear in the trial Court and the trial Court is the best Judge regarding deposition of witnesses recorded by him. Criminal Acquittal Appeal again should not be entertained to satisfy the ego of the complainant. The trial Court has assigned cogent reasons which are very weighty while acquitting the accused. While disposing of Criminal Acquittal Appeal N.11/1997 on 8-8-1997 I observed as follows:- "In my humble view in a criminal acquittal appeal the innocence of accused persons is doubtedly re-enforced. Firstly accused persons are presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty, and secondly after the accused persons have undergone the test of trial and the Court finds them not guilty as such very strong grounds are needed to dislodge the opinion of the trial Court recording innocence of accused persons after trial. " After hearing the learned counsel in open Court, I was not convinced that there are real substantial and glaring grounds of injustice, which may have crept in the judgment. passed by the trial Court, consequently, I dismissed this appeal in limine for the reasons to be recorded later after hearing the learned counsel in open Court these are the reasons for passing such order. H.Q./B-26/K Appeal dismissed.