2016 PLP 1048 (YLR)

AMER RAZA NAQVI, J.

Through this appeal appellant has challenged Judgment dated 25.01.2012, passed by VIIth Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Karachi Central in Cr. Case No. 2072/2012, which was registered in consequences of FIR No.205/2012 under sections 506-B/337-A(i)/354/34, P.P.C. Police Station Azizabad. Through impugned order respondents Nos.1 and 2 were acquitted in the said FIR.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the said case appellant was examined and also produced two private witnesses and all have supported the case of the prosecution and learned trial Court acquitted the respondents Nos.1 and 2 only on the ground that no medical certificate was produced. Otherwise per learned counsel the case was fully established and therefore respondents Nos.1 and 2 should be convicted in such case.

3. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2 submitted that no medical certificate has been produced in the matter and therefore appellant failed to substantiate the allegation with any proof. He further submitted that it is an admitted position that multiple litigation exists between the parties and enmity was there. He also submitted that there is unexplained delay in lodging of FIR. He has pointed out various contradictions between the statements of the witnesses of the complainant. He referred statement of appellant in the impugned judgment available at Page-15 and submitted that it was admitted by the appellant that no complaint was made to any neighbour or relative regarding the maltreatment and allegations contained in the FIR. It was also mentioned in such statement that allegation of beating with clubs and knife is not mentioned in the FIR. Appellant also admitted that respondent No.2 had filed an FIR No.224/2012 under section 448/34, P.P.C. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 also submitted that P.Ws. Nos.2 and 3 have admitted in their deposition that respondent No.2 has filed cases against such witnesses under Illegal Dispossession Act. Learned counsel in view of above submitted that impugned judgment has rightly been passed and therefore, this appeal should be dismissed.

4. Learned Assistant Prosecutor General submitted that so far as Section 506(2) is concerned nothing is available in the evidence of the complainant to substantiate such fact. He further submitted that although it is stated that M.L.O. is not necessary under the police rules but he points out that no mashirnama of injury has been prepared and place of injuries has not been mentioned in the FIR. He further submitted that there is contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses and therefore the benefit of doubt has rightly been extended to the accused by the learned trial Court and as such he supports impugned order.

5. I have heard all the learned counsel and perused the record with their able assistance. In a criminal acquittal appeal there is double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and unless something concrete is pointed out or there is evident flaw in the judgment on factual and legal aspects, interference by Superior Court in order of acquittal is not justified. Moreover, it is rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the State that ingredients of Section 506(2) are not available in view of the evidence produced before the trial Court. There is multiple litigation between the parties and also between the accused and witnesses for the complainant. It appears that family dispute is converted into criminal proceedings, and impugned judgment is well, reasoned. The evidence has properly been referred and read by the trial Court, therefore, in my humble opinion appellant has failed to point out anything on the basis of which this appeal even can be admitted for regular hearing. In such facts and circumstances this Criminal Acq. Appeal is dismissed at Katcha Peshi stage. ZC/F-23/Sindh Appeal dismissed.