' In support of this appeal against the judgment dated 26-6-2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, while exercising the powers under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., acquitted the accused respondents, learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court fell into an error by acquitting the respondents under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Specially when cross-examination of Muhammad Ajmal, complainant-eye-witness was still remaining.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the judgment impugned. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased had not observed any violence, mark of ligature or any external sign on the dead body.
The doctor also sent the viscera to the Chemical Examiner for detecting the poison, which was negative in nature. Had the doctor been satisfied while conducting post-mortem examination that the deceased died due to violence then there was no necessity on the part of the doctor to send the viscera to the Chemical Examiner for detection of poison. In this view of the matter, the ocular account was in clear conflict with medical evidence. Under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., the Court can acquit an accused at any stage of the case if it considers that there is no probability of the accused being convicted.
3. Having gone through the reasons given by the trial Court for acquittal of the respondents under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. We find ourselves in no position to differ with the same and find no force in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.