2026 PLP 383 (MLD)

Tariq Mahmood Bajwa, J.

By means of this appeal under Section 417 of Cr.P.C., appellant has called in question the validity of order dated 08.04.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore, whereby the respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

2. The complainant got registered FIR No.1013/2015 under Sections 436 and 506, P.P.C., alleging that the appellant had rented out his house, along with household articles, to respondent No.1. After some time, respondent No.1 began using the said premises for unlawful purposes. Upon being asked by the complainant to vacate the house, respondent No.1 allegedly set the complainant's house on fire and absconded from the scene. As a result, the articles belonging to the complainant, valued at Rs.9,65,000/-, were completely destroyed in the blaze. Thereafter, when the complainant demanded compensation for his loss, the accused allegedly extended threats of dire consequences.

3. After completion of investigation, report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court. The accused person filed an application under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C, seeking acquittal on the grounds that no probability of his conviction. After hearing arguments and examining the record, learned trial Court allowed the application and the accused namely Khalid Elahi was acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Hence, this appeal against acquittal of said respondent.

4. Preliminary arguments heard, record perused.

5. The trial court rightly acquitted the accused persons under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C., as the material on record failed to establish any credible link between the accused and the alleged offence. The complainant alleged that the accused set his house on fire during the night and fled away from the scene. However, when the witnesses recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C., they stated that the incident occurred in the morning and that Rescue 1122 was called to extinguish the fire. One striking aspect of the case is that, despite the alleged occurrence of a house fire at night, not a single person from the locality noticed or reported the blaze which renders the prosecution's story inherently doubtful. Furthermore, there exists complainant and the report submitted by Rescue 1122. The Rescue 1122 report attributes the cause of the fire to a short-circuit in the air conditioner and assesses the loss, as per the owner's own statement, at Rs.300,000/-. Conversely, when the complainant lodged the FIR after an unexplained delay of nearly two months, he deviated from his earlier version and alleged that the fire had been intentionally caused by the accused, claiming a loss of Rs. 965,000/- These inconsistencies and the delayed lodging of the FIR strongly suggest that the complainant concocted a belated story with the ulterior motive of falsely implicating the accused. In criminal jurisprudence, where no probability of conviction exists, continuation of trial is unjustified.

6. After careful perusal of the record, I am of the view that no misreading or non-reading of incriminating material on record could be pointed out to warrant interference by this Court. The case of prosecution is pregnant with material discrepancies and respondent was not obliged to establish number of circumstances, creating a reasonable doubt in the prudent mind, even a single circumstance is sufficient to extend the benefit of the same. Reliance can be placed on "Muhammad Zaman v. The State and others" (2014 SCMR 749). It is well settled law that every accused, after acquittal, had earned a double presumption of innocence, for rebuttal of which heavy onus lay on the prosecution but it had failed to discharge the same. Reliance is placed upon case law reported as Farid Akhtar and 4 others v. Yasir Latif and 03 others" (2025 YLR 1054). Finding of acquittal of accused/respondents recorded by the trial court was neither arbitrary nor capricious to warrant interference. Reliance is placed on "Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Raza and another" (2008 SCMR 329). It is a settled principle of law that once a single loophole/lacuna is observed in a case presented by the prosecution, the benefit of such loophole/lacuna in the prosecution case automatically goes in favour of an accused. Reliance is placed on (PLD 2024 SC 1119) "Asmat Ullah Khan and others v. The State and others." It is an established principle of law that to extend the benefit of the doubt it is not necessary that there should be so many circumstances. If one circumstance is sufficient to discharge and bring suspicion in the mind of the Court that the prosecution has faded up the evidence to procure conviction then the Court can come forward for the rescue of the accused person "Muhammad Riaz and others v. The State and others" (2024 SCMR 1839).

7. So in the given circumstances, when I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the acquittal judgment of the learned trial court, the same cannot be disturbed. Seeking guidelines from the esteemed judgment passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as "Jahangir v. Aminullah and others" (2010 SCMR 491), I am of the opinion that the instant appeal lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. JK/G-16/L ???