1991 P Cr (PLP)

Ss. 302, 307 & 420

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439

Revision against acquittal

Trial Court had given cogent reasons for not relying on matching of empty recovered from spot

Statements of witnesses were recorded much after the occurrence

Occurrence took place in 1977

Remanding of case for fresh trial after 14 years would not serve any useful purpose and no exception could be taken to the view formed by trial Court

Acquittal was maintained in circumstances. Riaz Kiani for Petitioner. Hamid Khan for Respondent No.

1. Lal Din for the State. Date of hearing: 13th March, 1991. The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the respondents were tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal for an offence under section 302/307/420, P.P.C. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 12-4-1980, gave the benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them. Petitioner who was complainant has challenged the said judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned trial Court had erred in law by extending the benefit of doubt to the respondents. Submitted that the defence could not create any doubt in the statements of the eye-witnesses, therefore, should have been relied upon. Contended that the empties secured from the spot had matched with the gun recovered at the instance of the petitioner, therefore, this aspect furnishes corroboration to the prosecution case.

2. I have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the evidence with his assistance as well as the judgment impugned. The learned trial Court did not rely upon the recovery for the reasons that each respondent was alleged to have fired a shot each and, in such circumstances, there was no occasion to eject the empty. The reasons given by the learned trial Court are cogent. The learned trial Court had ruled out of consideration the statement of Muhammad Ashraf, PW-7, for the reason that the occurrence had taken place on 25-6-1977 but he did not appear before the police till 12-7-1977 and, in such circumstances, his being an imported witness could be ruled out. The learned trial (court also ruled out of consideration the statement of Riaz injured PW on the sole ground that the statement was recorded much after the occurrence. Explanation given by the prosecution that earlier he was not in a fit state to make a statement, has rightly been disbelieved by the Court because there was nothing on the record to indicate that the investigating officer had got in touch with the doctor or the witness himself. The occurrence had taken place in the year 1977. It has been more than about fourteen years. I don't think it would serve any useful purpose if the case is remanded for fresh decision at this stage. Even otherwise after going through the judgment impugned, I feel no exception can be taken to the view formed by the learned trial Court. The petition fails which is accordingly dismissed. S.A./M-2765/L Acquittal maintained.