' Through this appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. The appellant has challenged the acquittal of respondents from the charges under sections 452/ 337- F(i)/337-F(iii)/337-F(iv/148/149, P .P.0 . Recorded vide judgment dated 18-1-2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Multan. However, he has convicted Hafiz-ur-Rehman under section 452, P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for one year with a direction to pay Rs.500 as fine and in case of default thereof to further undergo S.I. For one month by the same judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant alongwith his brother and others in the night between 15/16-4-2000, was present in his house, when at about 11/12-00 p.m. The accused persons now respondents herein namely Ghulam. Fareed armed with pistol, Hamid Raza and Hasan Raza armed with Sotas, Hasam ud Din armed with Chhuri, Hafeez. Ur Rehman (convict) armed with Churri and Faisal armed with Sota entered into the house of the complainant and caused injuries to Farrukh Jamal, the complainant's brother, due to the grudge that the complainant party refused to return the dowry articles of the daughter of Ghulam Fareed respondent No.1. The. Incident was reported to the police vide F.I.R. No.90 of 2000, dated 19-4-2000 at Police Station Dehli Gate, Multan.
3. The respondents alongwith their co-accused moved an application for bail before arrest, in which, the complainant and other witnesses sworn affidavits that they had entered into a compromise, hence their bail before arrest was confirmed.
4. After the submission of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. All the respondents were summoned to face the trial and charge was framed against the accused/respondents, which was denied by them. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the respondents produced as many as six witnesses.
5. The complainant appeared as P.W.1, Farrukh Jamal injured appeared as P.W.2, Ikhlaq Ahmad and Munir Russain appeared as P.W .3 and P.W.4, Muhammad Ishfaq, Investigating Officer/ A.S.-I.
Appeared as P.W.5 and Dr. Nazir Ahmad who medically examined the injured P.W., appeared as P.W.6.
6. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the statements of accused/ respondents were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the allegations and stated that the case was falsely lodged against them. The learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties has acquitted the respondents Nos.1 to 5 from the charges, but convicted Hafiz-ur-Rehman under section 452, P.P.C. Hence this appeal to the extent of acquittal order.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that all the accused had entered into the house of the complainant and were guilty of trespass into the house of the complainant punishable under section 452, PP.C. But they have been acquitted on surmises and conjectures. It is further contended that compromise between the parties was effected only to the extent of bail before arrest and the same could not be considered by the learned trial Court at the conclusion of trial. It is further contended that the Prosecution had succeeded in proving the case through cogent evidence but the respondents have been acquitted on surmises and conjectures. It is further contended that the respondents are liable to be convicted even under section 452, P.P.C.
8. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 are present in person and state that the case was false and that parties are closely related with each other. Hasam-ud-Din respondent No.2 and complainant Qaswa r Jamal are real brothers. Ghulam Fareed is brother-in-law of appellant, Qaswar Jamal, Hasam-udDin, Hafiz-ur-Rehman and Farukh Jamal while Hamad. Raza and Hasnain Raza are real brothers being sons Of Ghulam Fareed and paternal nephews of the above four brothers. Faisal is nephew of the complainant and is son of Hasam ud Din respondent No.2. The respondents alongwith their co-accused moved an application for the confirmation of bail before arrest in which appellant and injured P.W. Sworn affidavits on oath that they had entered into a compromise due to the intervention of the respectables and they raised no objection if the case - was cancelled or the respondents were acquitted. They had also stated that occurrence had taken place out of the house. They also admitted to have sworn affidavits on the intervention of the elders. The learned trial Court has rightly accepted the compromise arrived at between the parties at bail stage as it was effected for all purposes and not only for the purpose of bail. It cannot be left open at the wishes of the parties to effect compromise whenever they like and withdraw afterwards, but it is the Court, which has to see the genuineness and voluntariness of the same.
9. Even otherwise, the complainant had widened his net by involving all the family members, who were in good terms with the complainant as accused. Ghulam Fareed who is an aged man and brother-in-law of the complainant has been involved though was armed with a pistol yet he had not used the same during the incident and had not caused any injury to the injured. Nothing was recovered from him during the investigation. Even otherwise, all the respondents/accused were armed with Sotas and gave blows to Farrukh Jamal when he had fallen down, but no such injury was found by the doctor on the person of Farrukh Jamal. Hence, the statement of the eye- witnesses including the injured P.W. Being not supported by the medical evidence regarding the role attributed to these accused/respondents they have been correctly acquitted by the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has also acquitted Hasam-ud-Din on valid grounds that Hasam- ud-Din and Farrukh Jamal are real brothers and possibility of his false implication due to the strained relations cannot be ruled out. Moreover, Farrukh Jamal could not see the causing of injuries on the backside and these injuries were also simple in nature. As far as the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that they entered into the house is concerned, in the affidavits, which they admitted to have sworn during the cross-examination, they themselves stated that occurrence had taken place out of the house. For the offences regarding hurt the appellant and the witnesses had entered into a compromise and respondents cannot be convicted. Where as offence under section 452, P.P.C. Is not made out due to the above reasons.
The learned trial Court has given the valid reasons for the acquittal of respondents. I do not find any reason for interference in this appeal against acquittal order, which is dismissed.