' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--Through this petition for Special Leave to Appeal the petitioner- complainant has called in question the judgment, dated 12-4-2007 handed down by the learned Magistrate section 30, Depalpur, District Okara whereby respondents Nos.1 to 6 had been acquitted of the charge in a private complaint instituted by the petitioner against them in respect of offences under sections 324/365/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/148/ 149, P.P.C.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sufficient incriminating evidence was available on the record establishing culpability of respondent No,1 to 6 and, therefore, the learned trial Court was not justified in acquitting them. He has also maintained that the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 6 has occasioned grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference in the matter by this Court.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as the record of this case with his assistance it has been observed by me that the alleged occurrence in this case had taken place on 10-7-2000 and the private complaint in hand been instituted by the petitioner in that regard on 29-7-2000, i.e, with a delay of nineteen days. During those nineteen days no F.I.R. Had been registered in respect of the said incident. A perusal of the private complaint as well as the evidence led by the prosecution shows that the accused party was already present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and it was the complainant party of this case which had gone to that place and had restrained the accused party from doing what it was doing at the spot. According to the prosecution itself it was the intervention of the complainant party which had engaged the accused party and had propelled it into aggression. It, thus, cannot be denied that the case in hand was not one of premeditation or pre-concert on the part of the accused party. The learned trial Court had undertaken a detailed assessm ent and evaluation of the evidence available on the record and had been concluded that the story of the prosecution regarding construction of a watercourse at the spot by the accused party was not correct and as a matter of fact it was the accused party, particularly respondent No,3, who was in possession of the relevant parcel of land, it was his crop which was standing at the spot and there was already a watercourse available for irrigation of that land. A star witness of the prosecution namely Muhammad Ashraf, who was an injured prosecution witness, had refused to support the prosecution's case and had entered the witness-box as D.W.1.
Accordingly to Muhammad Ashraf (D .W.1) the incident in issue was a trifling incident of an ordinary scuffle and no weapon had been used in the same. The learned trial Court had concluded that in all likelihood it was the complainant party of this case which had aggressed against the accused party at a time when the accused party was peacefully present at the place of occurrence which was in its possession. The learned trial A Court had also adverted to some serious contradictions available in the statements made by the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution and had then concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondents Nos.1 to 6 beyond reasonable doubt. In the above mentioned peculiar circumstances of this case I have not been able to take any legitimate exception to the said conclusion reached by the learned trial Court. Special leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and this petition is hereby dismissed.