' Zahoor Ahmad Khan, the appellant has brought the instant appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 vide the judgment dated 5-6-2002 recorded by Mr. Muhammad Tariq, the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Dunyapur whereby he had acquitted them of the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt in case F.L.R. No.167 dated 23-6-1997 under sections 337-A(ii), 34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station, Saddar Dunyapur District Lodhran.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the said case was got registered by the appellant. He in the same had accused them of having caused him injuries on 23-6-1997 'at about 12-00 Noon when he was on his way back to his house from Chak No.269/W.B.
3. The prosecution at their trial had examined it's six witnesses. These respondents in their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. Had denied the allegation appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. They however, have not opted to adduce evidence in their defence and deposed on oath as required under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
4. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties had acquitted them of the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt.
5. He (appellant) feeling aggrieved of their acquittal has brought the instant appeal challenging the same.
6. It has been contended on his behalf that there existed evidence of eye-witnesses on the record and the same is supported by medical evidence and the same had brought home the guilt to them (respondents-accused) and that the learned trial Court merely on the basis of discrepancies of insignificant nature and want of motive has proceeded to extend them the benefit of doubt erroneously and so the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. I have carefully considered his submissions and gone into the copy of the impugned judgment.
8. The learned trial Court has based it's conclusion in the shape of acquittal of these respondents on the following facts in the prosecution evidence:--
(1) That P.Ws.2 and 3 did not utter a single word even as regards the motive part of the prosecution story;
(2) Conflict in the eye-witness account and the medical evidence;
(3) Discrepancies in the statement inter se of the P.Ws.; and
(4) Impartial investigation.
9. As regards the non-mentioning of motive by P.Ws.2 and 3, the same has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Though setting up of motive is not must always to prove the commission of an offence but at the same time it's absence also creates doubt with regard to the story of crime because normally crime is committed due to certain reason. It may be said here without fear of contradiction that every human action has reason behind. Any way, the non- mentioning of motive by these A P. Ws. Definitely had some doubt as regards the truthfulness of their story.
10. The learned trial Court has rightly found the conflict in the eye-witness account and the medical evidence. It has observed that the complainant-appellant has stated only one injury caused to him with the help of brick on his head while Exh.P.B. And Exh.P.C. Have indicated four injuries on his person. Thus, there had been conflict in the two sets of prosecution evidence. The same definitely had recoiled the veracity of the eye-witness account of the prosecution.
11. The discrepancies or contradictions as pointed out by the learned trial Court in para. No.8 of it's judgment have not been denied to be there. These are material and major in nature. These had adversely affected the prosecution case on the question of reliability of it's witnesses.
12. The conduct of the Investigating Officer in the instant case of not recording first case diary in his own hand seemingly is casual and not the correct approach towards the matter. The similar observation of the learned trial Court is based upon the evidence on record. It has rightly taken note of the same. The finding of acquittal of these respondents, therefore, seems to be based on sound reasoning and evidence on record.
13. The same is neither perverse nor arbitrary. The impugned judgment, therefore, is unexceptionable. The appeal therefore, has been found to be without any force and the same is dismissed summarily as envisaged by section 421, Cr.P.C.