Alam Khan complainant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 15.7.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tank whereby the Accused/Respondents No, 2 and 3 were acquitted of the charge in case F.I.R. No, 111 dated 14.8.2005 of Police Station Mullazi under Sections 324/337-F(v)/337-A(i)/34 PPC.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the guilt of the accused/respondents was proved through the ocular evidence and the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence on file and thus the impugned order of acquittal is not based on correct legal footings. He argued that medical evidence also supports the prosecution version.
3. I have examined the available record of the case and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. i 4. In this case, the statements of PWs. 3, 4 and 5, namely, Alam Khan complainant, Fazal Rahman and Muhammad Ali are relevant as they are the alleged eye-witnesses. The statement of PW Dr. Muhammad Iqbal is also material to be considered in this case.
5. I would first discuss the argument that the medical evidence corroborates the ocular account.
6. In the F.I.R., the accused are charged for causing injuries to the complainant Alam Khan and attempting at the life of Fazal Rehman. The injury on the person of the complainant was attributed to Roohullah who fired at him, while the role of firing was also assigned to Sarwar Jan. The medico- legal report of complainant Alam Khan is Exh. PW. 1/1 while that of Fazal Rahman is Ex. PW.1/2. While appearing as P.W. 1, Doctor Muhammad Iqbal mentioned swelling on the left arm of Fazal Rahman caused with blunt weapons. It means that it is not fire-arm injuv. PW-4 Fazal Rahman in his Court statement has stated that he was Fired at by one of the accused, but the medical report negates this fact because according to the Doctor, the injury caused to Fazal Rehman was blunt in nature and not fire-arm injury.
7. Another glaring contradiction is that the place of occurrence is at a distance of three kilometer from the house of the complainant. According to him, he along with PW-3 attracted to the spot on hearing hue and cry of their uncle. It is again unbelievable that a person at a distance of three kilometer would have heard hue and cry. This suggests that both the witnesses were not present on the spot at the time of occurrence.
8. PW-4 Alam Khan has stated that Muhammad Ali PW-5 attracted to the spot after the occurrence. This Muhammad Ali in his Court statement has stated that when he reached the spot, he saw the accused Roohullah duly armed and fired at his brother and uncle which hit them, but in cross-examination he has stated that he is not the eyewitness of the occurrence. So these are material contradictions which results in uprooting the prosecution case.
9. Another discrepancy in the prosecution case is that PWs 4 and 5 have stated that the place of occurrence is a thoroughfare, while the site-plan shows no thoroughfare. It again suggests the absence of both the above mentioned PWs.
10.In view of my discussion, the presence of eye-witnesses is not proved on the spot beyond any reasonable doubt. The medical evidence contradicts the ocular version. The material discrepancies mentioned above do not support the prosecution case.
11. Further, once an accused is acquitted by a competent Court of law by facing the agonies of protected trial, the he earns the presumption of double innocence, which cannot be distributed slightly, unless it is proved that the impugned order of acquittal is patently illegal, perverse, fanciful and has resulted grave mis-carriage of justice.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has miserably failed to point out any such thing in the impugned judgment of acquittal which is based on correct appraisal of evidence brought on record and thus it merits to be upheld.
13.Consequently, I find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine.