' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---This criminal acquittal appeal has been filed against the Judgment passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur on 29-8-2011 in Sessions Case No,62 of 2007 whereby the respondent No,1 was acquitted under section 265-H (i), Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ghulam Hussain lodged an F.I.R. No,1 of 2007 under section 302, P.P.C. Alleging therein that Dili Jan was his uncle, who was Chowkidar of Tube- well at the land of Asim Shah. On 13-1-2007., Dili Jan did not return back to his house, therefore, the complainant along with Ghulam Ali and Faiz Ahmed went to the Tube-well for searching him,where they saw that he was lying on the cot and died as a result of fire arm injury.
3. Prosecution had examined ten witnesses in the trial Court. The statement of respondent No,1 was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. But he neither examined himself on oath nor led any evidence in his defence. This was totally an unseen incident. Neither the complainant named any eye- witness in the F.I.R. Nor the name of any accused was mentioned.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence collected by the prosecution so also other material evidence available on record was sufficient to convict the respondent No,1. The trial court has failed to appreciate the ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence. He further argued that ocular testimony was fully supported by the medical evidence. He further argued that the trial Court wrongly observed that the evidence of star witness Dhani Bux was not inspiring confidence and in order to acquit the respondent No,1 the learned trial Court has simply discussed some minor contradictions to extend the benefit of doubt. Lastly he argued that the impugned Judgment is based on misreading 'and non-reading of evidence, which resulted miscarriage of justice.
5. We have carefully gone through the evidence available on record. The main reason of acquittal of the respondent No,1 is that neither -any witness from the nearby villages cited nor any evidence of eye-witness collected by the I.O. Even no statement of tube-well owner was recorded by the police nor any empty bullet was collected by the I.O. From the place of incident nor any incriminating weapon was recovered from the possession of respondent No, 1/accused. Besides above, no confessional statement of accused has been recorded before any Judicial Magistrate.
There was also delay in recording the statement of P.Ws. Under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. And since many contradictions were found in the evidence, therefore, by extending benefit of doubt, the respondent No,1 was acquitted by the 'trial Court. The complainant initially reiterated the contents of F.I.R. And he further deposed that he brought Dhani Bux to Police Station who disclosed that accused Gulsher murdered the deceased. The star witness in this case was Dhani Bux who was brought by the complainant to Police Station, who disclosed that Gulsher murdered deceased Dili Jan and it is clear from the deposition of Dhani Bux that on 13-1-2007 while he was sleeping, he heard the fire arm shot and came out from his house and also took torch and saw Gulsher. First of all he was not eye-witness of the incident and he further admits in his cross-examination that he did not give torch to police officer during investigation. He further admitted that he never visited the place of incident on that day and he further admitted that since 13-1-2007 to 6-3-2007 he did not give any statement against the accused. No one from the village came out on the noise of fire shot. Entire case against the respondent No,1 was set up on the basis of the statement of Dhani Bux whose name was placed in Column 2 in the challan which fact was admitted by I.O. In his cross examination. After examining the evidence available on record, it is clear that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the respondent No,1, therefore he was rightly acquitted by the trial Court.
6. Where no ocular evidence is available connecting the accused with the commission of the offence, it would not be safe to record the conviction particularly when any link in the chain in the circumstantial evidence is missing. It is well settled that once an order of acquittal is passed in favour of the accused there arises strong presumption of his innocence and presumption of his innocence becomes double in the case of acquittal and very strong and exceptional grounds are required to set aside the order of acquittal. Standards to appraise the evidence in appeal against acquittal are quite different from those laid down for an appeal against conviction and on the examination of order of acquittal, credence should be accorded to the findings of the subordinate courts where the accused had been exonerated from the charge of commission of crime.
7. We have no doubts in our mind to hold that the Judgment passed by the trial court is based on correct appreciation of evidence and does not require any interference by this Court. The appeal was dismissed in limine by our short order dated 18-10-2011 and above are the reasons.