JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14-11-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kharian, District Gujrat, whereby, respondents Nos. 2 to 5 were acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. From case F.I.R. No. 217 dated 20-4-1998, under sections 302/452, P.P.C. Read with section 34, P.P.C., Police Station Kharian, District Gujrat.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant, in support of this appeal, contends that the prosecution had collected overwhelming evidence on record against respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to connect them with the alleged commission of the offence; that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts and, thus, is not tenable in the eyes of law. Adds that the learned trial Court erred in law by acquitting respondents Nos. 2 to 5 without recording of any evidence and only relying on the finding of the police which is inadmissible in evidence and as such, the judgment of the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that respondents Nos. 2 to 5 had been declared innocent by different Police Officers and as such there was no probability of their conviction. He further contends that accused can validly be acquitted at any stage under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. If there is no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence.
However learned D.P.G. Very frankly contends that he is unable to support the impugned judgment that according to him was passed in undue haste.
4. Heard. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the relevant documents with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties. We have noticed that the learned trial Court had framed the charge against the respondents on 7-11-2000 under sections 302 and 452, P.P.C. It is pertinent to mention that learned trial Judge on 7-11-2000 also held in the interim order that after perusal of report under section 173, Cr.P.C. And other documents there was sufficient material available on tile to proceed with the case and thereafter he opted to frame the charge against the respondents and had adjourned the case to 14-11-2000.
5. We have noticed that learned trial Judge on the date so fixed on the application of the respondents under section 265-K, Cr.P.C., without recording any evidence has acquitted them, just relying on the findings of different Police Officers who in their investigation have found them innocent.
6. The first question for determination before us is whether the opinion of police officers regarding guilt or innocence of the accused itself is relevant and admissible in evidence, we, are of the view that the ipse dixit of the police regarding guilt or innocence of the accused is not admissible in evidence and in holding so we are fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Ahmad (Mahmood Ahmed) versus The State (2010 SCM R 660) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:-- "It may be mentioned here, for the benefit and guidance of all concerned, that determination of guilt or innocence of the accused persons was the exclusive domain of only the Courts of law established for the purpose and the said sovereign power of the Courts could never be permitted to be exercised by the employees of the police department or by anyone else for that matter. If the tendency of allowing such-like impressions of the Investigating Officer to creep into the evidence was not curbed them the same could lead to disastrous consequences. If an Investigating Officer was of the opinion that such an accused person was innocent then why could not, on the same principle, another accused person be hanged to death only because the Investigating Officer had opined about his guilt"
There was sufficient material on the file as observed by the learned trial Judge himself to proceed with the trial against the respondents. Twelve prosecution witnesses had joined the .Investigation and their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Had also been recorded by the Investigating Officer.
The evidence so recorded prima facie contain the material that connects the respondents with the crime, the verdict of trial Court regarding the acquittal of the respondents without recording of all that evidence is premature in the circumstances of the case.
7. Next question before us is whether after framing of charge in a murder case the accused can be acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C.? We are in total agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents that trial Court has jurisdiction to acquit an accused at any stage of the case and the relevant provision of law is very much clear on the subject, but at the same time it is also well settled by now that section 249-A and section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. Are an exception to the general rule. These provisions being of utmost importance have to be construed very strictly. Depriving a complainant to prove his case through the evidence collected during the investigation without strong and exceptional reasons is not a proper and fair exercise of jurisdiction. Here we refer the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case The State v. Raja Abdul Rehman's (2005 SCM R 1544):-- "This Court in the case of Bashir Ahmad v. Zafar-ul-Islam PLD 2004 SC 298 and Muhammad Sharif v. The State and another PLD 1999 SC 1063 (supra) did not approve decision of criminal cases on an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Or such allied or similar provisions of law, namely, section 265-K, Cr.P.C. And observed that usually a criminal case should be allowed to be disposed of on merits after recording of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under section 342.
Cr.P.C. Recording of statement of accused under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. If so desired by the accused persons and hearing the arguments of the counsel of the parties and that the provisions of section 249-A, section 265-K, and section 561-A, of the Cr.P.C. Should not normally be pressed into action for decision of fate of a criminal case."
It was further observed by the august Court in the same judgment:-- "It will not be out of place to mention that in appeal or revisional proceedings, the order of acquittal of the accused under section 249-A or section 265-K, of the Cr.P.C. Would not have the same sanctity as orders of acquittal on merits. Consequently, the principles which are to be observed and applied in setting aside concurrent findings of acquittal or the principle relating to the presumption of double innocence when an accused is acquitted after a full-fledged inquiry and trial to acquittals under section 249-A. Cr.P.C. Would not be applicable."
In view of the above we are of the considered view that acquittal of the respondents in this case under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Is unwarranted and not tenable.
8. For what has been discussed above Criminal Appeal No. 2057 of 2000 is accepted, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court on 14-11-2000 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned trial Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the law. Learned trial Court shall ensure the attendance of the parties and expeditious disposal of the trial strictly in accordance with law. With these observations this appeal is disposed of.