JUDGMENT NISAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH, J.---Through this criminal acquittal appeal the appellant/complainant Syed Wazir Ali Shah has challenged the judgment dated 30-12-2002 passed by Joint Civil Judge and FCM Shikarpur in Criminal Case No.8 of 2001 arising out of a Direct Complaint whereby the respondents Nos. 2 to 10 were acquitted of all the charges under sections 506/2, 504, 380, 447, 147, 148 and 149, P.P.C. r/w section 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14-12-2000 the appellant/complainant Syed Wazir Ali Shah filed a Direct Complaint against the accused Manzoor Shah and 8 others (respondents Nos.2 to 10) stating therein that about 16 years ago one Khalid Akbar Shah had given him a plot near Thul Bus Stand, Shikarpur with permission to construct shops over such plot and to run the business.
Accordingly, the complainant spent about Rs.40,000 and constructed to shops, out of which he gave one shop two one Nadeem son of Jamaluddin Jakhro for running hair cutting Saloon while the other shop was given by him to Mistri Jameel Ahmed Mirani but he closed his business therefore, such shop was then given by complainant to accused Khalil Ahmed son of Jagan Jatt for running denting and pointing work of the vehicles as the complainant being an old and infirm, was unable to run himself both these shops therefore, he was taking care of the same. It was alleged by the complainant in his Direct Complaint that on 20-11-2000 at about 6-30 p.m. The accused Manzoor Shah and Mushtaq Shah, together with co-accused Mahboob Shah, Maqsood Shah, Khalil Ahmed Jatt and Muhammad Bux jatta, came in two cars at the shop of complainant, duly armed with lathies, knives and clips etc. It is further alleged that accused Manzoor Shah and Mushtaq Shah had pistols in their hands and they entered in the shop of complainant, abused him and pointed out their weapons upon him and also threatened him to vacate the shop by tomorrow else they will commit his murder. Thereafter, the complainant together with Noor Muhammad and Loung reached at Police Station New Faujdari but the S.H.O. Was not available there. On next day i.e. 21-11-2000 complainant reached at Telegram Office where he sent telegrams about the incident to DC and SP Shikarpur as well as S.H.O. Of Police Station New Faujdari, Shikarpur and thereafter the complainant reached at his shops to open the same at about 10-00 a.m. But he saw that accused Khalil Jatt who was working under the complainant had occupied the shop together with his brother Zahoor Jatt after breaking the locks of the shop and the material of the complainant was also missing from his shop. On enquiry of complainant, the accused started fighting with him and thereafter accused Khalil Jatt went on his bicycle and brought the co-accused namely Musthaq Shah and Manzoor Shah armed with revolvers, Maqsood Shah having a lathi Zahoor with a knife, Muhammad Nawaz having iron piece and Muhammad Bux having bricks. It is further alleged in the complaint that all accused caused blows with fists and lathies to the complainant and also abused him saying that they have allowed the accused Khalil Jatt and Zahoor Jatt to sit in the shop. Due to cries of complainant the muhalla people gathered there and saved him and then at the request of muhalla people namely Noor Muhammad, Loung and others, the accused left the complainant who then found that his cash Rs.925 and eye glasses were missing. Thereafter the complainant together with Noor Muhammad and Shafi Muhammad reached at Police Station where the S.H.O. Did not give him any response as the accused persons were also present there.
The complainant then approached the SSP Shikarpur on 22-11-2000 and gave him application narrating the entire incident. The SSP marked such application to DSP and thereafter the complainant repeatedly approached DSP who lastly met with complainant on 27-11-2000 but despite of his directions the S.H.O. Kept the complainant on false hopes and did not take any - action saying that the accused persons have already lodged two N.C. Reports No.41/1930 dated 21- 11-2000 and 25/1410 therefore the S.H.O. Told the complainant that his complaint is not cognizable.
The complainant therefore requested in his Direct Complaint for taking action against the accused persons.
3. It appears from record that trial Court firstly recorded statement of complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C.. And then after holding preliminary inquiry brought the above complaint of the complainant on. Regular file on 23-1-2001 and registered the case as Criminal Case No.8 of 2001 and the attendance of all accused was secured to face trial in the above case.
4. During trial, the charge Exh.2 was framed on 2-6-2001, to which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the complainant Syed Wazir Ali Shah examined himself as well as his witnesses Noor Muhammad and Loung Khan. The statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Of the accused were then recorded as Exhs.17 to 25 respectively. After hearing the parties, the trial Court acquitted all the accused as mentioned above vide judgment dated 30-12-2002 which has been impugned by the complainant/appellant before this Court.
5. Since none was present for the appellant or the respondents Nos. 2 to 10 nor any intimation received from their side, therefore, I heard Mr. Musab Baleegh Dhamrah, learned State counsel and with his assistance, also perused the relevant record.
6. The complainant/appellant Syed Wazir Ali Shah had complained about two incidents allegedly took place on 20-11-2000 and 21-11-2000 respectively. The incident/offence allegedly committed by the accused persons on 20-11-2000 was complained by the complainant/appellant in his Direct Complaint dated 14-12-2000 in the following words:-- "On 20-11-2000 the accused Manzoor Shah and Musthaq Shah together with accused Mehboob Shah, Maqsood Shah, Altaf Shah, Khalil Ahmed Jatt and Muhammad Bux Jatt, came at 6-30 p.m. At the shops of complainant situated at Thull Bus-stop duly armed with lathies, knives and clips etc, who came in their two cars. Out of them, two accused Manzoor Shah and Musthaq Shah, who had pistols in their hands, entered into the shop of the complainant and while abusing him pointed out their weapons upon the complainant and threatened him to vacate the shop by tomorrow else they will cause his murder. Saying so the accused left away."
7. Whereas the complainant/appellant during his evidence before the trial Court, deposed in respect of the above incident as under:-- "On 20-11-2000 at about 6-30 hours at evening time. I was present at my shop situated at Thul Stand Mirani Road, Shikarpur, where I was informed that some one has attacked of my shops. I went there and found two cars standing in front of my shops and 5/8 persons were standing, while saying me that they would vacate the shops as they disclosed that they would hand over the possession of shops to Khalil and threatened that if I did not vacate the possession of shops till the morning time they would cause harm to me and they would get me arrested from police."
8. It is evident from the above that the version of the complainant as mentioned in his Direct Complaint, is not corroborated even by his on evidence recorded by the trial Court as he disclosed no name of any accused or any of their weapons nor deposed about the alleged abuse or the threats issued to him by the accused persons. More over the copy of complaint which was initially moved by the complainant on 22-11-2000 before SSP Shikarpur has also not been produced by him during evidence in support of his alleged version. Accused persons had beaten him with lathies and iron rods but there is no such medical evidence. The articles of the complainant were allegedly removed by the accused persons but there is no recovery to connect the accused persons for the alleged theft etc. Admittedly the shops in question were not owned by the complainant who claimed himself to be the tenant in respect of these shops and the accused Khalil Ahmed and Zahoor Jatt had allegedly occupied the same illegally or forcibly but in his cross-examination the complainant had also admitted before the trial Court as under:-- "I have given shops to Khalil Ahmed on rented basis about one and half year back from the incident. "
10. Since the self contradictory evidence of the complainant which is also not corroborated by his witnesses on material particulars, itself creates doubt in his alleged version which does not constitute any offence with which the accused are charged, therefore, no conviction can be warranted on such doubtful evidence.
9. So far as the second incident of 21-11-2000 is concerned, the accused persons were alleged to have had committed criminal trespass and occupied the shops of complainant unlawfully after breaking over the locks and committed theft of the material/articles of the complainant lying in his shops and also beat the complainant. But, there appears no corroborative evidence adduced by the complainant on these allegations and his evidence as well as of his two witnesses namely Noor Muhammad and Loung, is contradictory and creating doubts in his alleged version. It was alleged by the complainant that
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the trial Court has properly appraised relevant evidence available on record by making careful examination of the same, which has not been misread or omitted from consideration by the trial Court, therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is unexceptionable as the same does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity and on the contrary, it appears to be the result of fair and legal appraisal of evidence available on record with sound reasons. Since the appellant has not been able to show that the findings of the trial Court were perverse, illogical artificial or based on misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice and since the double presumption of innocence having been attached to the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, the appeal of the appellant deserves no merits.
12. It was for these reasons that the above appeal of the appellant was dismissed by a short order dated 28-5-2010.