' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, i.---ine appellant, Shaheed-urRehman, has filed this appeal against the judgment, dated 30-11-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I Lakki in case F.I.R.
No,194, dated 28-6-2000 of police station Pezu, District Lakki Marwat registered under sections 302/324/34, P.P.C., whereby Mir Zali, Shafqatullah and Rehmatullah, accused/respondents herein, were acquitted.
2. The prosecution story as narrated by the complainant/appellant Shaheed-ur-Rehman in his first report lodged on 28-6-2000 at 0830 hours is to the effect that on the said date he along with his brother Ghulam Farid and nephew Ikramullah were returning home on their bullock cart from the water pond situated in Langer Khel and when reached near the Kota of Ghani-ur-Rahman at about 0830 hours within the limits of Sheri Khel, Mir Zali Khan and his two sons named Shafqatullah and Rahmatullah duly armed with Kalashnikovs were sitting there who opened firing at them as a result whereof Ghulam Farid was hit and died while the complainant and his nephew escaped unhurt.
Motive for the offence was given to be land dispute.
3. After arrest of the accused/respondents and completion of investigation, complete challan was put in Court against them. In order to prove its case against the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses whereafter statements of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded where they did not plead guilty to the charge and professed innocence. However, neither they opted to produce defence evidence nor wished to be examined on oath. The learned trial Judge after evaluating the evidence brought on record and considering the arguments advanced at the bar found the accused/respondents not guilty of the offence charged with and thus acquitted them vide judgment impugned herein.
4. We have gone through the record of the case and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the prosecution case is full of material contradictions and inherent defects. The site-plan prepared in the case is not in conformity with the version of the complainant. The medical evidence also negates the ocular account of the complainant whose presence at the time of occurrence on the spot is not proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt. The other eye witness Ikramullah was abandoned by the prosecution which further creates a dent in the case, benefit whereof goes in favour of the accused/ respondents. Besides, there is no recovery of vessels containing water and the alleged bullock cart from the spot. The prosecution story is further unbelievable on the ground that indiscriminate firing has been attributed to all the three accused/respondents at the complainant, his nephew-deceased Ghulam Farid and eye- witness Ikramullah with Kalashnikovs from a close range with which only Ghulam Farid was hit and killed while the complainant and P.W. Ikramullah were spared to depose against them and then Ikramullah, who was the star eye-witness of the prosecution was abandoned. One person was killed in the occurrence for which three persons were charged. The empties recovered in the case as per FSL report were fired from one and the same weapon. The solitary statement of the complainant and overall perusal of his cross-examination is not reliable. Further his failure to mention the names of his co-villagers at the time of his presence at the water pond and further making of arrangements for bringing cot to the spot and vehicle for taking the dead body of the deceased to the police station makes the prosecution case doubtful.
5A. All these glaring contradictions and defects in the prosecution were enough to hold that the accused/respondents were not guilty of the offence charged with and thus they were rightly acquitted through the impugned judgment which is based on sound reasons and needs no interference. Above all, once an accused is acquitted of a charge, then he earns the presumption of double innocence and very strong and exceptional grounds are needed to disturb the findings of acquittal. The impugned conclusion is based on cogent reasons and we do not find any illegality therein.
6. Consequently, the appeal is without substance which stands dismissed in limine.