Appeal Against Acquittal

After acquittal, accused attains double presumption of innocence.

Appeal under S.417(2-A), Cr.P.C., in a hurt case defined by the P.P.C and tried by the Courts constituted under Criminal Procedure Code shall be competent by a person who has been hurt, and if he is a minor or insane then appeal would be competent on his behalf by his father and grandfather or a paternal grandfather howhighsoever he may be; if he dies for any other reason before final decision of the hurt case then appeal would be competent by his legal heirs

In the instant case the alleged injured was neither minor nor insane

Appellant did not fall within the definition of "an aggrieved person"

Thus, appeal against acquittal was dismissed being not competent.

As per the Medico-Legal Certificate, the injured was brought to the hospital on 07.09.2023 and on the same date he was discharged, but contradictorily, brother of the alleged injured stated that the treatment of injured continued for 4/5 days and they had been discharged after 10/12 days

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Perusal of FIR revealed that the occurrence had taken place on 07.09.2023 at about 10:30 a.m., whereas the matter was reported to the Levies force on 13.09.2023 at about 02:00p.m.

Admittedly, there was a delay of about six days and three hours in lodging of FIR, for which no explanation had been rendered by the prosecution, whereas, the inter-se distance between the place of occurrence and the Levies Thana was about three Kilometers

Inordinate and unexplained delay of about six days and three hours in lodging FIR by the complainant had created serious doubt about genuineness of the story set up by the prosecution with sole object and ulterior motive to get the respondents convicted

Thus, the said report lost its evidentiary value

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Prosecution failed to recover any foreign currency from accused persons and it never alleged that bank transaction of Pakistani currency established link of acquitted accused persons in the business of foreign currency

Mere huge transactions of account holders in Pakistani currency in bank accounts were not sufficient to constitute a cognizable offence under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947

Initial burden always lies on the shoulders of prosecution to prove the case and without substantiating the same through tangible evidence, prosecution version becomes doubtful

High Court declined to interfere in the findings rendered by Special Tribunal which were legally correct and there was no infirmity, perversity or legal error in the order of acquittal of accused persons

Once accused was acquitted after full application of mind, even at pre-evidence stage, presumption of double innocence was attached, unless it was shown to be perverse or based on misreading of material

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Accused-respondent filed miscellaneous criminal application for suspension of execution of his death sentence before the Trial Court on the basis of compromise, but was dismissed

Revision was filed against order for dismissal of petition before this Court, wherein matter was remanded to decide the same afresh

Record showed that Trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused-respondent on the basis of compromise in both the offences as he had been convicted and sentenced under S.302(b) P.P.C read with S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Whereas under the provisions of S.367(2) and (3) of the Cr.P.C it was mandatory for the Trial Court that after finding the accused guilty of one or more offences, upon recording conviction, separate sentence must be clearly awarded to the accused, so convicted, otherwise it would be illegal being in violation of the mandatory provisions of S.367 Cr.P.C, therefore, at this stage it could not be agitated that the necessary modification shall be made in the conviction and sentences of the accused-respondent and he be further convicted and sentenced under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 as well because, the matter was now past and closed transaction and could not be re-opened

Thus, Trial Court while acquitting the accused-respondent on the basis of compromise had committed no illegality or irregularity, calling for interference of this Court

Resultantly, this appeal, being without any substance, was dismissed.

In the present case, the medical evidence had been furnished by Medical Officer, who, in his examination-in-cross, stated that he could not specify the distance qua the six injuries/wounds received by the deceased

Medical Officer also stated that the injuries received by the deceased could be caused due to a pistol or revolver or rifle

Thus, prima facie, the medical evidence was not in line with the crime empties recovered from the spot coupled with the changing stances of the complainant-party, therefore, the same had rightly been discarded by the Trial Court qua the guilt of the accused/ respondents

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record showed that weapon of offence i.e. a 30 bore pisto, was allegedly recovered on the pointation of the accused/respondent vide recovery memo

Marginal witness to the recovery memo. had stated in his examination-in-cross that the place wherefromthe alleged recovery of pistol had been made was commonly used by the inmates of the house of one "AK", therefore, when the place of recovery of weapon of offence was admittedly neither an abandoned place nor a hidden one rather an open place then how for such long period it remained unnoticed and not spotted by anyone, as such, this element alone made the very recovery of weapon of offence doubtful

Same was the case with another alleged weapon of offence i.e. a 30 bore pistol, allegedly used by the other accused

First of all, said pistol was not recovered on the pointation of the said accused/respondent, rather it was produced to the police by son of the accused/respondent

It was evident from the recovery memo that during the course of spot inspection, the Investigation Officer had recovered two empty shells from the venue of crime

Forensic Science Laboratory Report was also not in line with the version of the prosecution qua the recovery of weapon of offence, whereby, it was reported that the two crimeempties, allegedly recovered from the motorcar vide the recovery memo, were fired from pistol and not from the pistol in question, therefore, the Forensic Science Laboratory Report was of no use to the prosecution qua the guilt of the accused/respondent, which had rightly been disbelieved and discarded by the Trial Court through the impugned order/judgment of acquittal

Even otherwise, when substantive evidence failed to connect the accused person with the commission of offence or was disbelieved, corroborative evidence was of no help to the prosecution as the corroborative evidence could not by itself prove the prosecution's case

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

On 23.10.2013 i.e. after four days of the occurrence when the complainant-party recorded their statements under S.164, Cr.P.C, they charged the accused/ respondents for the murder of the deceased, by citing a specific motive which was disclosed to be that his deceased brother had suspicion in his mind that his sister-in-law had developed illicit relations with the accused/ respondent

Complainant, in his examination-in-chief, stated that he almost reiterated the same facts as advanced in his initial report followed by his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C.

No doubt, in initial report of complainant, in the form of 'Murasila' followed by the FIR nobody was charged by the appellant/complainant for committing the murder of his brother, however, in his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C, complainant implicated the accused-respondents

In his cross-examination, complainant not only resiled from his statement recorded before the police but he also negated his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C in terms that he had not stated therein thataccused had developed illicit relations with his sister-in-law

Complainant also contradicted the alleged telephonic contacts made between the accused and said lady

Complainant also stated that when he reached to the spot, his deceased brother was lying on the ground and at the venue of crime there were around 200/300 persons

Very initial report of the appellant/complainant followed by his statement recorded under S.164, Cr.P.C, as well as his testimony before the Court were full of contradictions and improvements which cut the very roots of the prosecution's case

Same was the case with the statement of eye-witness

Testimony of said witness too was also of no use for the prosecution qua the guilt or otherwise of the accused/respondents

Both the said witnesses had not been able to specify the role of each and every accused in the commission of the alleged offence, as it was not appealable to a prudent mind that how the complainant-party or for that matter the alleged witnesses of the occurrence identified and specified the accused/respondents, for their alleged role of firing at the deceased, amongst the set of five accused who were allegedly boarded in the motorcar, therefore, the very story advanced by the prosecution was not appealable

Even if the accounts of these material witnesses were put in juxtaposition with their improvements, then the same made the case of prosecution a case of no evidence

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he made firing upon complainant party, due to which maternal uncle of complainant was hit and died, whereas complainant escaped unhurt

As per the prosecution version, the occurrence had been witnessed by the complainant as well as an eye-witness, the shop keeper

According to the narration of complainant, the respondent-accused fired at him as well as his uncle which hit his uncle, however, he escaped unhurt

Site plan which was prepared at the instance and pointation of complainant showed the accused at point No. 2, the complainant at point No.3 and the deceased at point-1 whereas the shopkeeper at point No.4

Distance between point 2 and point 1 was given as 4 paces, whereas the distance between point 2 and point-3 was one pace

Point-3 which was given to complainant came in the line of firing of the respondent accused, however, his escaping unhurt and not receiving a single scratch was not appealable to a prudent mind particularly, as per his own admission in cross-examination that there was no barrier/obstacle between him and accused at the time of firing

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he made firing upon complainant party, due to which maternal uncle of complainant was hit and died, whereas complainant escaped unhurt

In respect of the motive, though, during investigation, the Investigating Officer had brought on record, a copy of deed pertaining to compromise between father of respondent accused and one "MM", however, no evidence was available on record to show how the said deed was concerned with the deceased and that how the said event formed a motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased

Thus the motive too had not been proved by the prosecution

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he made firing upon complainant party, due to which maternal uncle of complainant was hit and died, whereas complainant escaped unhurt

Prosecution relied upon the dying declaration in the form of telephonic call allegedly made by the deceased then injured from mobile phone No. 0310-9818898 to the official landline number of the police station which was entered in DD No. 12 dated 20.4.20217

However, as per record, neither the mobile phone of the deceased was taken into possession nor any data was collected from the concerned quarter whether the said SIM number (0310-9818898) was registered in the name of the deceased or otherwise, nor such fact had been stated before the police at the time of report by the complainant nor during his Court statement that the deceased while in injured condition made a phone call to the police station charging the respondentaccused for the commission of the offence

Though CDR data had been brought on record which showed the location of the said mobile number at place "S" at 11:30 hours and the duration of call as 01 minute 12 seconds, however, there was nothing available on record to show that the deceased after being hit was able to talk for such length of time

Time of call shown therein was 11:30 hours, however, as per the statement of identifier, the deceased had already expired at 11:00/11:15 am

Thus that piece of evidence could not be safely relied upon

Said fact could also be seen from another angle; if it was presumed that the complainant was present along with the deceased, there was no occasion for the deceased to have made a call and such call was required to be made by the complainant himself, it thus clearly suggested that complainant was not the eye witness

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he made firing upon complainant party, due to which maternal uncle of complainant was hit and died, whereas complainant escaped unhurt

As per the contents of the murasila/FIR, the occurrence took place at 11:30 hours and in his Court statement, the complainant stated that the deceased was alive till the time of reaching the hospital

Scriber of the Murasila stated that he reached the hospital at 12:10 pm and by that time the deceased was already dead

Postmortem examination report would show that the deceased then alive was brought in gasping and shocked who was given emergency treatment and later expired at 12:25 hours

Medical Officer had given the time of postmortem examination as 12:45 hours and further stated that he examined the injured and treated him within one hour of hisarrival and then conducted postmortem examination within one hour of his death

Medical Officer further stated that the deceased died before less than one hour of the post mortem examination

Prosecution witness, who identified the dead body of the deceased in his Court statement, stated that he did not accompany the dead body of the deceased to the hospital rather reached later to the hospital at 11:00/11:15 am and by that time, the deceased had already expired and that he signed the identification documents of the deceased at 11:30 hours

Escaping unhurt of the complainant and the different timings of death of the deceased in the statement of the scribe of the report, the Medical Officer and the identifier of the dead body casted a serious doubt regarding the mode and manner in which the occurrence took place as well as over the presence of the complainant on the spot at the time of occurrence

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was charged that he made firing upon complainant party, due to which maternal uncle of complainant was hit and died, whereas complainant escaped unhurt

According to the contents of the Murasila/FIR, the occurrence took place in the shop of shop keeper, however, the site plan would show that the said person had not been shown present rather, son of that shop keeper had been shown present in the said shop at the time of occurrence who had been given point-4 and the presence of that witness had also repeatedly been admitted by the complainant in his Court statement

Said person was a star witness of the prosecution but astonishingly, he had not been examined during trial

Thus from the non-production of the said witness, an adverse inference could be drawn had the said witness been produced, he would have not favored the prosecution case as laid down under Art.129 (g) of the Qanun-e- Shahadat, 1984

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Acquittal could be reversed only when it was found blatantly perverse, resting upon firings of impossibility and resulted into miscarriage of justice

Acquittal could not be set aside merely on the possibility of a contrary view.

SHO deposed that the second marriage of accused was solemnized about 17/18 years back and the deceased was also living with them in the same house

Complainant deposed in his examination-in-chief that he lodged his report on 08.01.2017 to SHO

In his cross-examination, complainant stated that from 27th December up to 7th January, 2017, complainant-party had remained mum about missing of deceased lady

Complainant admitted that prior to subject occurrence no quarrel had taken place between his sister and the accused

Assistant Commissioner deposed in his cross-examination that when they reached to the spot of recovery of dead body of the deceased, the Police Officials had already been present there

Investigating Officer deposed in his cross-examination that the alleged recovery of dead body of deceased had been shown from a thickly populated and surrounding houses

However, no private or independent person from the locality had been associated with the recovery proceedings

In view of such glimpses of evidence of prosecution's witnesses, it was crystal clear that prosecution had not been able to prove nexus or connection of the accused with the alleged murder of his wife, especially, when as per record the accused had contracted a second marriage some 17/18 years back and thereafter for sufficient time she was living in the house of her husband even in presence of his second wife

If the accused was having any intention to kill the deceased, he could have done it in her bloom days instead of waiting for long 18 years

Prosecution had not been able to discharge its initial burden in the instant case

Thus, Trial Court had therefore rightly extended benefit of doubt to accused/respondent through impugned judgment in shape of his acquittal

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

As per record, appellant/complainant claimed ownership of the property on the strength of an exchange deed dated 20.8.1993, inter-se executed between father of accused-party and complainant

Civil suit was filed by complainant, then plaintiff, in respect of an exchange deed dated 20.8.1993, inter-se executed between father of accused-party and complainant

Civil suit was filed by complainant, then plaintiff, in respect of an exchange deed, however, same deed at first instance was discarded and rejected by Civil Court vide its judgment and decree dated 28.3.2023 and appeal filed against the said judgment and decree also met the same fate by dint of judgment and decree of the appellate Court dated 27.10.2023

Same fact of civil litigation in respect of the property-in-dispute had also been evident from testimony of a witness, who was examined in Court during complaint proceedings

Same was the case with statement of another witness, who was none else but real brother of appellant/complainant

In view of testimonies of both those two witnesses, it was crystal clear that the property in dispute was the subject-matter of civil suit and complainant/appellant had not been able to prove his ownership and possession over the same, what to talk of his alleged dispossession therefrom

Therefore, in such circumstances, even if evidence of prosecution was recorded, still there was almost zero possibility of conviction of accused/respondents and which aspect of the case had expertly been put under its grasp by the Trial Court, while rendering down the impugned order/judgment dated 10.01.2025, qua acquittal of respondents/accused, which was neither perverse nor arbitrary nor whimsical, hence, was upheld and maintained

Appeal being devoid of any merits was dismissed, in limine.

Appellate Court needed to be cautious while considering the evidence and should avoid reversal of an acquittal, unless it is found that the acquittal was perverse, conjectural, arbitrary, jurisdictionally defective and prompted by mis-reading or non-reading of evidence.

When a Court of competent jurisdiction passes the judgment of acquittal on the basis of cogent grounds, the same is not to be disturbed in a mechanical manner

In order to set-aside the judgment of acquittal, it is to be proved that the judgment of acquittal is arbitrary, fanciful, perverse and contrary to record

An accused on the judgment of acquittal acquires a verdict of innocence hence it is to be disturbed in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.

Occurrence took place on 12.09.2021 at 06:30 p.m. wherein though respondent No.02 (against whom this appeal has already been dismissed as withdrawn by virtue of order dated 13.03.2023) was under the allegation of making a fire shot at the injured but it did not hit him whereas present respondent No.01/accused was burdened for causing four injuries on the person of complainant-injured who narrated the whole story as mentioned in the FIR as well as in his statement under S.161 of Cr.P.C.

During cross-examination, complainant's testimony could not be shattered by the defence in any manner

Observation of Trial Court for innocence of respondent No.l/accused was beyond comprehension

Trial Court remained wrangling with extraneous matters, like absence of any other witness at the place of occurrence

When complainant-injured himself was present and no fabrication of injuries was observed by the Medical Officer, no other corroboration was required and merely on the sole testimony of an injured witness, conviction could be recorded, subject to availability of medical evidence which was available in the case

Even otherwise, another eye-witness of the occurrence deposed that in his presence, respondent No.01/accused caused injuries with knife on the person of complainant-injured

Thus, findings of Trial Court for acquitting the respondent No. 1/accused were flimsy particularly on ocular and medical evidence which were the deciding factors in a hurt case; therefore, the same were reversed

Impugned judgment to the extent of acquittal of respondent No.01/accused was set aside

Consequently, respondent/accused was convicted and sentenced accordingly

Appeal against acquittal was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused was a bank official who was alleged to have received 46 cheques of different government departments and got transferred huge amount in the account of co-accused after getting clearance from NIFT

Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge

Validity

At the time of processing 44 cheques accused was serving in the bank as a cashier

All employees in banks performed duties according to their job descriptions and there was a teller limit for every employee

Teller limit of accused was Rs. 250,000/- whereas all 44 cheques were beyond such limit

It was duty of bank manager or operation manager to process most of the cheques and due to any inability on their part to monitor such transaction, accused who was a low paid employee could not be made a scapegoat

Due to inefficiency or negligence of superior colleagues of accused, he could not be held responsible

High Court declined to interfere in acquittal of accused

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Every accused, after acquittal, earns a double presumption of innocence, the rebuttal of which heavy onus lies on the prosecution.

However, when the witnesses recorded their statements under S.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 was that, despite the alleged occurrence of a house fire at night, not a single person from the locality noticed or reported the glaze which rendered the prosecutions story inherently doubtful

Furthermore, there was clear contradiction between the version of complainant and the report submitted by Rescue 1122

Rescue 1122 report attributed the cause of the fire to a short-circuit in the air conditioner and assessed 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/

Such inconsistencies and the delayed lodging of the FIR strongly suggested that the complainant concocted a belated story with the ulterior motive of falsely implicating the accused

Where no probability of conviction exists, continuation of trial is unjustified

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in limine.

Findings of acquittal could not be reversed merely because a different conclusion from that of the Court acquitting the accused is also possible

Courts shall be very slow in interfering with such an acquittal judgment, unless it is shown to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law, or suffering from the errors of grave misreading or non-reading of evidence

Such judgments should not be lightly interfered with and a heavy burden lies on the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence which the accused has earned and attained on account of his acquittal.

Order of acquittal carries with it a double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and in such cases, the Court is required to act slowly before interfering with such order of acquittal, unless the grounds for acquittal are perverse, wholly illogical or unreasonable.

Appeal against an acquittal, being an extraordinary remedy, has distinct features from that of an appeal against conviction

To reverse an order of acquittal, it has to be established that the acquittal order is unreasonable, perverse and manifestly wrong.

Accused was charged for issuing cheque amounting to Rs. forty lakhs to complainant in lieu of cash amount of complainant given to accused on profit basis, for agriculture business, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds

Complainant admitted during his cross-examination that he did not obtain any receipt of the payment of Rs. 21,00,000/- to the accused

Complainant also admitted that he was an employee and not a businessman, and his salary was Rs. 50,000/= per month, with monthly savings up to Rs. 30,000/

However, complainant was unable to establish in evidence from where did he obtain such a huge amount

Complainant attempted to improve his case in evidence for the first time by claiming that two of his brothers had also invested in the principal amount

Complainant also produced an agreement dated 27-08-2020, allegedly made between him and accused after more than two years of handing over the alleged cash amount

However, such an agreement was completely silent about any agricultural business

Moreover, neither complainant nor his witnesses deposed any description of the agricultural business

Complainant claimed that the agreement was executed in presence of witnesses

On the contrary, one of the witnesses admitted in his evidence that he had no knowledge about the terms and conditions settled in between the complainant and the accused, nor any knowledge about any profit amount

Said witness also admitted that the alleged agreement was prepared by the complainant

Said witness also admitted that the handwriting on the subject cheque was of the complainant and not of the accused

Despite claiming to be the alleged co-investor of the principal amount and despite being the alleged marginal witness of the said agreement, said witness did not support the complainant's version, nor did he know anything about the terms and conditions of the alleged agreement

Sanctity, authenticity and existence of such belated agreement, therefore, became doubtful

Said witness also admitted that the complainant was employed and was not doing business, as claimed in the FIR

Complainant's handwriting, both on the cheque and on the agreement, casted serious doubts on the entire allegations

Investigating Officer also admitted that neither did he verify the stamp paper of said agreement, nor did he record the statement of any independent person, to testify about the said transaction whereas, witness and the complainant were both real brothers

Complainant therefore utterly failed to establish the handing over of an amount of Rs.21,00,000/- cash to the accused

Complainant also failed to bring on record any specification and detail of his alleged business

Complainant's claim of doing business was contradicted by a witness

Complainant had, therefore, failed to bring forward any reliable proof which could substantiate that the cheque in question was for the fulfillment of any obligation, so also the consequential 'dishonesty' against the accused

Once the accused had denied the very existence of any transaction between the parties, the primary burden to prove the same was on the complainant; however, it appeared that the complainant utterly failed to establish the existence of any obligation and agreement between the complainant and the accused; most of his statements remained un-established

Witness also contradicted his statement in the FIR, the Investigating Officer also could not support complainant; and lastly, he also contradicted his own statement

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was alleged to have been found involved in theft of natural gas through a rubber and iron pipe connected to the main auxiliary gas line

Record showed that the Trial Court, after thoroughly evaluating the evidence, acquitted the accused by recording comprehensive findings based on contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution's case

Under the criminal jurisprudence, once an accused is acquitted by the Trial Court, he earned a presumption of innocence

In the present case, the Trial Court rightly acquitted the accused based on material contradictions, unreliable prosecution evidence, and failure to establish the charge beyond a reasonable doubt

Prosecution's case suffered from serious infirmities, including the fact that the gas connection was not found in running condition at the time of the raid, contradictions in the statements of witnesses, and the possibility of tampering with the case property

Said factors fully justified the acquittal of the accused

Since the appellant had not pointed out any illegality, perversity, or misreading of evidence in the impugned judgment, the High Court found no reason to interfere

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was alleged to have been found involved in theft of natural gas through a rubber and iron pipe connected to the main auxiliary gas line

Acquittal judgment was passed on 30-10-2021, whereas the appeal against acquittal had been filed on 26-02-2022 after a delay of almost four (04) months, well beyond the prescribed limitation period

Only ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay was that the complainant was terminated from his service in Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC) and was later reinstated, and due to his termination, the appeal could not be filed in time

However, this ground was not legally sufficient to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeal

First Information Report was lodged on behalf of Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC), a corporate entity, and not by the complainant in his personal capacity

Termination or reinstatement of the complainant had no bearing on the ability of Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC), as a company, to pursue the case within the prescribed time limit

Complainant was merely an individual officer of Sui Southern Gas Company (SSGC), whereas the case was initiated in the corporate capacity of the company

Hence, the complainant's termination did not constitute valid justification for condoning such a significant delay

Condonation of delay was not a matter of right but an exception that could only be granted if the delay was satisfactorily explained

Mere negligence, inaction, or personal inconvenience of a complainant was not a valid excuse to condone the delay

Since the appellant had failed to show sufficient cause, the application for condonation of delay was liable to be dismissed

Appeal against acquittal being time barred was dismissed, in circumstances.

In this case, the complainant had been declared hostile by the prosecution and he had been subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but no fruitful result had been achieved while evidence of witnesses had confirmed that gas was being misused through a generator that had been recovered, but none of the prosecution witnesses had been deposed directly against respondent No. 2 that he was the owner, occupier or user of the premises/school

Deposition of witnesses was at variance and material contradictions were found between the evidence of said witnesses

Former witnesses had categorically deposed that respondent No.2 was not present at the site at the time of recovery and seizure of the fake meter and generator while one of the witnesses had deposed that male administrator was available at site

On demand respondent No.2 could not produce monthly bill of the said meter

Such material contradictions created dented the credibility of the prosecution story and three official witnesses had not confirmed that respondent No.2 was owner of premises and he was available at site

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Evidence of Investigating Officer as well the affidavit allegedly sworn by respondent No.2, showed that Investigating Officer had produced an attested copy in respect of affidavit and not the original and same had been though marked as exhibit, which was inadmissible evidence in view of requirement of Art.76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, as the prosecution was under burden to produce the primary evidence

In case of loss or misplacing of the primary evidence, an application to seek permission must be filed during evidence which was mandatory under Art.76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, prosecution, therefore exhibition of copy of affidavit could not be held admissible document and could not be read into evidence while passing impugned judgment as it had rightly been done by the Trial Court

Even such factum had not been attributed to respondent No.2 during recording his statement under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Alibi plea taken by respondent/accused through a defence witness was a week piece of evidence, especially under the circumstances where respondent/accused himself had not made any statement on oath

Allegation of respondent/accused against the Christian community, which was numerically larger in number in the locality, was not supported by any proof

Inhabitants of the locality belonged to the lowest income group

Christian community of the said area was neither financially strong, nor socially influential, or politically powerful

In fact, in that particular case, the victim was a daughter of a poor sweeper, who, in terms of social status was among the weakest and the lowest

Person in such a position would not have the ability to influence the population of the area to target anyone, particularly someone from their own locality

Specially, when the alleged animosity was against a person of Muslim faith, the cultural/social dynamics in our country would always place the Muslim community in a position of stronger strength over any minority group in any given locality

Despite the accused alleging discrimination upon him by the Christian community, no evidence of any prior religious clashes involving the community had been submitted to substantiate that claim

Trial Court, without considering social stigmas of our society, acted in an arbitrary and mechanical manner and placed undue reliance on the accused's plea in his statement, which amounted to a misreading or even non-reading of the evidence before it

Therefore, the acquittal order lacked merit and did not stand under the law

In such circumstances, Criminal Acquittal Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment

Consequently, the respondent/accused was convicted under S.265-H(2), Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable under S.377-B, P.P.C., and sentenced to suffer R.I. for fourteen (14) years with a fine of Rs. one million only.

Solitary statement of the victim alleged that she went to tuition centre and brother of teacher/respondent/accused took her in room where he removed her shalwar (trouser) and committed bad activities with her

Victim rushed to her mother and accused/respondent came in the street

People of locality apprehended accused and maltreated him, which sufficiently established the incident did take place with her

Such piece of evidence was completely over looked by the Trial Court despite the evidence being un-shattered and fully corroborated, which was sufficient piece of evidence for conviction

Solitary evidence of the victim minor girl was to some extent supported with the medical evidence

Medico-Legal Officer had narrated res gestae statement of the victim baby girl that she stated before her that she had gone to tuition where a guy/accused-respondent asked her to go in a room which was unlocked and started touching her private parts and asked her to keep silent; pushed her mouth shut and fingered her private (vaginal) area

Said witness had also noted nail scratch marks on both forearms of the victim

Victim's res gestae statement had also been narrated by her mother that victim informed her that accused took her into the room and after removing her trouser, he touched with his finger her vagina

Trial Court, however, by giving undue weight to the statement of respondent/accused, claiming his innocence and false implication on the basis of discrimination being a Muslim living in a Christian neighborhood, had ignored said piece of evidence

Trial Court discarded the evidence of said witnesses, which firmly indicated that the case pertained to an offence of 'sexual abuse' as defined under S.377-A, P.P.C., which carried under S.377-B, P.P.C., the punishment with imprisonment for a term not less than fourteen years and might extend up to twenty years with fine which shall be less than one million rupees

In fact, the trial Court confused the offences, treating that case as one of rape, whereas in reality, the entire case based on evidence was of sexual abuse

Said facts led to a judgment that was focused on an offence of rape, requiring DNA report, which was neither committed, nor ever alleged by the complainant side

As a result, the impugned judgment was found perverse, arbitrary, stemming from complete misreading of the prosecution's evidence and lead the case in an entirely wrong direction

In such circumstances, Criminal Acquittal Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment

Consequently, the respondent/accused was convicted under S.265-H(2), Cr.P.C., for an offence punishable under S.377-B, P.P.C., and sentenced to suffer R.I. for fourteen (14) years with a fine of Rs. one million only.

Perusal of the findings of the Courts revealed that the appellate Court based its findings by referring to only statement of one witness and the audit reportand affidavits of respondents 1 and 2 besides application Mark-A and omitted to take into consideration the rest of the prosecution evidence comprising statements of 8 witnesses and certain documents

On the contrary, the Trial Court exhaustively discussed the entire prosecution evidence by determining points for determination and reasons thereupon

Not only that, but the Trial Court also appreciated the submissions of the defense and turned down the same with explanations

Noticeable that the entire prosecution evidence was repelled by appellate Court by rendering observations in omnibus fashion without reference to the said piece of evidence in-part or as a whole

Judgment-in-appeal even did not contain the details of the prosecution evidence

In such state of affairs, it could safely be held that the impugned judgment was result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence and, therefore, was not legally sustainable

Impugned judgment was set aside and matter was remanded to the appellate Court for re-writing of judgment.

Wrongful restraint, obstructing a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant, unlawful assembly, rioting

Appreciation of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Accused-respondents were charged for protesting and blocking a main road

In the instant case S.147, P.P.C., was not applicable, because four ingredients as defined in S.141 of P.P.C regarding unlawful assembly had not been established specially use of criminal force by the accused during protest was missing

No statement was available on case file regarding any person who was prevented from proceedings in any direction in which he had right to proceed, hence the attraction of S.341, P.P.C., in the FIR against the accused/respondents was also not justified

As for S.186 and 188, P.P.C., mentioned in FIR, no Police Officer was authorized to register FIR for the violation of S.144, Cr.P.C., unless complaint in writing was made by the authority in terms of S.1951(a), Cr.P.C., which stipulated that, "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Ss.172 to 188 of P.P.C, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he was subordinate

Section 249-A, Cr.P.C., categorically empowers Magistrate of acquitting the accused persons at any stage of the case, if after hearing the prosecutor and the accused, for reasons to be recorded, he considers that the charge is groundless or that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence, which has judiciously been done by him after hearing the parties

In the instant case, after full trial of the matter, there was no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence mentioned in the FIR, as such further proceedings in the Court amounted to wastage of time and abuse of process of the Court

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Acquittal order cannot be interfered with until and unless the non-reading of evidence or any other perversity or miscarriage of justice is pointed out.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon

Appreciation of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Discrepancy in the statement of complainant

Accused was charged for causing hurt to the complainant by firing, who died later on

Statement of complainant/ deceased only mentioned two gunshots being fired and made no reference to a third shot

Without any corroborative testimony or evidence to support the appellants' assertion, their claim regarding third fire shot remained unsubstantiated and speculative

Since the deceased specifically noted only two gunshots, this discrepancy casted doubt on the credibility of the prosecution's account and weakened its position

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon

Appreciation of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Medical evidence not supporting the ocular account

Accused was charged for causing hurt to the complainant by firing, who died later on

Complainant/deceased remained admitted in hospital and in that regard, post-mortem report was referred to, which was not rebutted

Surprisingly during the post-mortem no bullet was retrieved from the deceased's body and the nature of the injuries as per post-mortem report did not support the prosecution's account regarding the manner of occurrence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing hurt, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, possession of illicit weapon

Appreciation of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Benefit of doubt

Accused was charged for causing hurt to the complainant by firing, who died later on

At the time the deceased was being moved into the vehicle, both the DSP and his driver were present on the spot, yet neither of them made any statement regarding the third gunshot fired by the accused-respondent

Given these observations, it was reasonable to conclude that either party failed to present a wholly accurate account and the case appeared to be shrouded in mystery, casting serious reservations on the prosecution's narrative

Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Mere possibility of a different conclusion upon appreciation of the evidence is insufficient to warrant interference.

There is a heavy burden on prosecution as there is a presumption of double innocence.

Appellant/injured complainant was aggrieved of acquittal of respondent/accused by High Court setting aside his conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court

Validity

Respondent was single accused and had caused multiple injuries on the vital part of appellant/injured complainant, which were supported by medical evidence and also corroborated by recovery of dagger, coupled with reports of Chemical Examiner which were positive

There were sufficient evidences in shape of statement of injured witness and other supporting evidence

There was nothing on record in shape of statement of any surgeon or Radiologist which could indicate that injury extended into body cavity of injured where vital organ laid

Supreme Court set aside conviction under section 337-D, P.P.C., but maintained the ones under section 324 P.P.C. and under Section 13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, passed by Trial Court

Supreme Court reduced the sentence awarded to respondent/accused to sentence already undergone

Appeal was allowed.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing mutalahima, ghairjaifah-hashimah, munaq-qilah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Medical evidence

Scope

Ocular account disbelieved

Accused-appellants were charged for committing murder of the nephew and son of complainant and caused injuries to complainant and his brother through firing

Medical evidence mayconfirm the direct or ocular account, if any, with regard to the set of injuries, kind of weapon allegedly used in the commission of offence and at least the nature of injuries

However, in the instant case when the ocular evidence was disbelieved then evidentiary value of medical evidence qua the guilt of the accused/respondents as a sole piece of corroboratory evidence could not be given much weight

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused person, as a matter of right, is presumed to be innocent before trial unless the charge is proved against him/her

Acquittal at trial gives rise to double presumption of innocence for an accused

An appellate Court is needed to be cautious while considering the evidence and should avoid reversal of an acquittal, unless it finds that the acquittal is perverse, conjectural, arbitrary, jurisdictionally defective and prompted by mis-reading or non-reading of evidence

Even if a contrary view is formed on re-appraisal of evidence, it should not be used to disturb an acquittal, provided convincing evidence is available on the record to reverse acquittal.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing mutalahima, ghairjaifahhashimah, munaqqilah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Infirmities in prosecution evidence

Accused-appellants were charged for committing murder of the nephew and son of complainant and causing injuries to complainant and his brother through firing

Allegedly, the occurrence took place on 31.08.2014 at 12:00 hours, however, the report was made to the local police at 14:00 hours with two hours delay but such delay had not been properly explained on the record with valid and logical reasons

Similarly, the eye-witnesses including the complainant as well as the injured had recorded their statements under S.164, Cr.P.C, on 06.09.2014, with delay of 06 days and in that regard too there was no plausible explanation on the part of prosecution

Besides, one "S" was charged in the FIR for causing injury allegedly inflicted to an eye-witnesses of the occurrence, but subsequently, his name was replaced with "B", by alleging that his name was inadvertently mentioned in the first information report and his name was deleted from the instant case

Said evidence would depict that the circumstantial evidence in shape of blood-stained articles coupled with postmortem/medical reports of the deceased and the injured were not sufficient to record conviction of the accused/respondents

When substantive evidence fails to connect the accused person with the commission of offence or is disbelieved, corroborative evidence is of no help to the prosecution case as the corroborative evidence can not by itself prove the prosecution's case

Two co-accused, who were arrested in the case, had been acquitted on the same set of evidence and appeal there-against preferred by the complainant was also dismissed

Testimonies of witnesses of ocular account were based on material contradictions and discrepancies, fatal to the case of prosecution

Prosecution alone was under heavy duty to prove the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubts

Even a single reasonable doubt is sufficient to record acquittal

Evidence of the prosecution was contradictory regarding the fact of forming of unlawful assembly and its joining by the accused-respondents, therefore, the principle enshrined in S.149, P.P.C., could not be applied to the instant case

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant was aggrieved of Trial Court's order whereby his complaint filed under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was dismissed and accused were acquitted

Validity

Complainant alleged that he was owner in possession over his inherited property; that accused persons/ respondents dispossessed him, occupied the said property and cut-downed crops planted on the same

Record showed that complainant in his cross-examination had stated that the suit property was their inherited property, however, in his statement before Investigating Officer he had come up with another claim that the disputed land was purchased by him from one "AK"

In order to clarify that ambiguity about ownership of very disputed land, during the course of trial, appellant/complainant could not produce any documentary evidence in terms as to whether the disputed land had become ownership of appellant on account of being his inherited property or it had fallen into their ownership in view of any sale or deed

Likewise, Muharir deposed in his cross-examination deposed that during trial complainant could not produce any ownership document qua purchase of property in dispute

Same was the case with testimony of Investigating Officer, who deposed in his cross-examination that complainant had not produced any document in the form of deed in respect of ownership of the property in dispute

Another alleged eye-witness of occurrence deposed in his cross-examination that he did not remember as to whether at the time of recording of his statement any other persons were present with him or not

In the same breath, said witness also deposed that at the time of harvesting of crops he was present in his house and as soon as he came out therefrom, he had seen accused cutting crops

Said witness further clarified that he neither informed complainant in respect of cutting of crops by one of the nominated accused nor any other person of locality apprised him, in that regard

Similarly, eye-witness deposed in his Court statement that both the parties were cousin inter-se and he had no knowledge about ownership and possession of both the parties

Likewise, it was also claimed by complainant that when nominated accused had entered into his landed property they had allegedly cut-downed barely crops cultivated on the same and said harvested crops had subsequently been taken by accused to their houses without his permission

However, during the course of investigation neither cut-downed pieces of crops had been taken into possession by Investigating Officer in order to verify and substantiate claim of appellant nor any incriminating recovery in that regard had been made from personal possession of accused/respondents nor on their pointation, therefore, that alleged claim of complainant qua harvesting/cutting of barely crops was shrouded in mystery

Even otherwise, alleged testimonies of both the eye-witnesses would be of no help to complainant/prosecution because they had not uttered a single word in respect of dispossession of complainant from the property in dispute

In view of the depositions of star witnesses of appellant/complainant including his own testimony before the Court, it was crystal clear that neither appellant could produce any documentary evidence about ownership of property in dispute wherefrom he was allegedly dispossessed nor his witnesses could utter a single word in their testimonies before Court that in their presence the alleged offence of dispossession of appellant took place

Thus, the whole allegation of appellant/complainant in terms that he had been dispossessed from property in dispute was standing in vacuum

Circumstances established that the case of appellant/complainant was a case of no evidence

Appeal being bereft of any merits was dismissed, in limine.

Complainant was aggrieved of Trial Court's order whereby his complaint filed under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was dismissed and accused were acquitted

Accused was acquitted in absentia

Validity

Section 540-A, Cr.P.C., mandated and allowed a Court to dispense with personal attendance of an accused if he was represented by a pleader and there were multiple accused, or if the accused was incapable of appearing before Court

In view of said provisions of law, Trial Court was justified to make an order in respect of acquittal of said accused/respondent in absentia, when otherwise, on the available record, no prima facie case was made-out against him, even if he would have been forced to face a full-fledged trial before Trial Court

More particularly, when on the same set of evidence, other nominated accused/respondents had earned a honourable acquittal during trial proceedings

Appeal being bereft of any merits was dismissed, in limine.

Acquittal judgment or order normally does not call for any interference, unless it is found arbitrary, capricious, fanciful, artificial, shocking, ridiculous and there is non-reading and gross mis-reading of the evidence, resulting into miscarriage of justice.

On perusal of the Forensic Science Laboratory Report it transpired that test protocols that were applied to carry out the test were missing, therefore, the mandatory requirement of law provided by Rule 6 had not been complied with in its letter and spirit

Non-compliance of the ibid Rule would render the said report inconclusive, suspicious and untrustworthy and the same could not be relied upon

On one hand the prosecution failed to send the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory within due time or to prove safe custody, and on the other the Report of the Government Analyst in the present case did not specify the protocols of the tests applied and it did not meet the requirements of the law

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the convict/respondent beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Record showed that no scale and bots, sachets of charas, or sale produce was recovered from the possession of the accused, despite the allegation of selling narcotics

Even no test purchase was made to ascertain that actually accused was busy in selling the narcotics, so much so, it had been admitted by complainant that at the time of arrest no customer was present with him

Entire evidence was silent about the fact of selling of narcotics

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the convict/respondent beyond reasonable doubt

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.