2012 PLP 426 (YLR)

SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.

Appellant has challenged the order dated 30-10-2010 passed by the IInd Judicial Magistrate, Karachi-South in Criminal Case No.230 of 2008 in F.I.R. No.195 of 2007 under sections 147/148/ 506-B/337-F(5), P.P.C. of Police Station Saddar, Karachi thereby acquitted all the accused persons. Brief facts of the case are that on 31-10-2007 at about 11-30 p.m. it was alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons, who are respondents in the present appeal, came at the house of the appellant and beaten his brother Marwin Swami with the result that his leg was fractured. Appellant lodged F.I.R. and after usual investigation the charge-sheet was submitted by the police before the competent Court. Evidence of six prosecution witnesses was recorded, thereafter, statements of accused persons were recorded, who denied the allegations. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate found the case doubtful and acquitted the accused/respondents in the present case as the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. Appellant filed the instant Acquittal Appeal. On 17-3-2011 when the learned counsel for the appellant was put to notice to pin point the illegality in the impugned judgment. Today also at the time of hearing learned Counsel for the appellant was asked to pin point the illegally in the impugned order but he failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court has acquitted the accused persons illegally when sufficient evidence was available on record. He further submits that the accused persons have been acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate on presumptions and surmises. No opportunity was provided to the counsel for the appellant by the learned Judicial Magistrate for hearing and decided the case without considering the material available on record. I have heard Mr. Syed Muhammad Akber Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Khadim Hussain learned DPG and perused, the record carefully. In the F.I.R. nothing has been mentioned as to which of the accused had given blow/injuries to the victim. Even the victim had not attributed the injuries to any of the accused. There is material contradictions in the ocular testimony as well as medical evidence, which makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is contrary to the record as ample opportunity was provided to the learned counsel for the appellant to point out any illegality in the judgment but he failed to point out any single illegality in the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Appellant was represented by the counsel before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who argued that matter therefore, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is baseless that the appellant counsel was not heard. Learned Judicial Magistrate has discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in detail and has fully considered the material brought on record, his findings are not based on presumptions and surmises. Above are the reasons of my short order dated 24-11-2011 whereby the appeal was dismissed. H.B.T./K-29/K Appeal dismissed.