2016 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Through this criminal appeal, appellant has prayed for conviction of the respondent who has been acquitted by the trial court through impugned order.

2. The circumstances in which respondent and eight others were indicted through FIR No.09/2008 of Police Station Astore are that complainant and the respondent were contesting a case in connection with a dispute of a house for the last about 7-8 years. As a result of execution proceedings in the civil case, regarding dispute on a decreed house, police had come to the village and after getting the decreed house vacated, complainant party was accompanying the police back to their house. Accused Abdul Khaliq, Abdul Razaq, Abdul Waheed, sons of Ghulam Qadir, Quresha wife of Ghulam Qadir, Bibi, Shahrukh, Kosar, Perveen and Fatima, daughters of Ghulam Qadir, ambushed on the way and attacked the complainant party. As a result of said attack, complainant, Mr. Habib-ur-Rehman, and Shakeel received injuries while their motorcycle was damaged. Police reached on the scene of occurrence and saved the complainant from the above named assailants. After chalking FIR, police completed investigation but charge sheeted only the respondent for trial. Trial court completed trial proceedings and acquitted the respondent.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material available on file. The prosecution evidence of the case is comprised of about 10 PWs and the documentary evidence of Exh.PW-6/A and Exh.PW-7/A. Exh.PW-6/A is recovery memo showing recovery of motorcycle while Exh.PW-7/A is the medical report showing nature of injuries to the victims of occurrence.

4. From plain perusal of prosecution evidence, it is evident that the prosecution evidence is full of contradictions. I am taking up the prosecution evidence for discussion. It is not disputed that both the FIR lodger and the second victim of occurrence, Mr. Shakeel, were on a single motorcycle at the time of occurrence. In his statement, PW-1 attributes injuries to the women assailants, who have been directly charged in the FIR but complainant admittedly did nothing against the discharge of women assailants under section 169, Cr.P.C. PW-2 contradicts PW-1 and attributes injuries to the person of FIR lodger and himself by the women assailants as well as by men assailants, including the respondent. PW-3, who is a policeman, further contradicts PW-1 and PW-2 and nominates four women assailants and three men assailants, including the respondent for the occurrence. PW-4 is a policeman but admittedly was not present on the scene of occurrence. PW-5 is also a policeman and nominates four women assailants and three men assailants, including respondent for the occurrence. It is very important to note that PW-3 and PW-4, who are impartial witnesses of the occurrence, specifically named the assailants in their statements in the court but police released all the said persons under section 169, Cr.P.C. except the respondent. I have noted that the said two PWs do not describe any difference between the role of the persons, they are nominating for the occurrence. PW-6 is a policeman and is stating about Exh.PW-6/A through which police took the damaged motorcycle in their possession. The said PW states about broken clutch of the motorcycle and nothing else. PWs 8, 9, 10 and 11 are police officials and their statements are not relevant in proof of guilt of the respondent. PW-7 is the doctor, who has prepared Exh.PW-7/A which is the medical report regarding the nature of injuries to the complainant and the second victim of occurrence. Exh.PW-7/A shows that the nature of injuries was simple in nature.

5. So the question debated before me was that whether respondent was the only person who caused injuries to the victims of the occurrence? In my opinion, police has just filled in the blanks by charge sheeting any one (respondent) out of the assailants named in the FIR for the occurrence, although the prosecution story of occurrence clearly shows that, if any occurrence has taken place, the same was committed by all the accused named in the FIR and respondent only cannot be held solely responsible for the occurrence.

6. I, therefore, hold that this appeal is meritless and stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed. This file be consigned to record. HBT/95/GB Appeal dismissed.