1. ' SALMAN HAMID, J.---This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against judgment dated 21-4-2010 (Judgment) whereby respondents Nos.1 to 4 have been acquitted by III-Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, (III-ADJ) in Private Complaint No,406 of 2005 lodged by the appellant with the allegations that on 19-3-2005 the above respondents around 1615 hours along with other persons who were duly armed came to his office located in Gulshan-e-Zehra at Survey No,309, 310, Deh Mal Memon Goth Road, Gadap, Karachi, and looted him of Rs,20,000 and Rs,250,000 and also took away his NIC, original documents of motorcycle bearing Registration No,KA-5452 and other documents of the project such as site plans, receipts etc. At the time of leaving, after such looting, they also fired in the office. F.I.R. No,40 of 2005 under sections 395, 324 Pakistan Penal Code and 337-H(2)
2. Q&D.Ordinance was lodged. It was investigated into.
3. ' During the trial, in order to prove the charge, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 as Exhibit 3, P.W.2 Abdul Hassain as Exhibit 4 and P.W.3 Abdul Samad as Exhibit 6 where after learned counsel for the complainant/appellant closed the side as Exhibit 7.. Statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Was recorded as Exhibits 8-11 in which all of them denied the allegations against them.
4. Whereas Haji Liaquat examined himself on oath and produced witnesses in his defence namely.
5. Safdar Shah.
6. ' Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the court below did not appreciate the evidence in its true perspective and totally misread it with the result that the respondents had been acquitted in terms of the Impugned Judgment.
7. ' Learned Additional P.-G. Appearing for the State has relied upon the cross-examination of D.W.2 and his evidence and stated that nothing came out from the cross-examination to connect the respondents with the offence and it was asserted by him that the appeal should be dismissed in limine.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Additional P.-G. For the State and have also looked into the Impugned Judgment. The evidence of the above witnesses would show, particularly, the evidence of Abul Hassan son of Rustam Khan which was heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, that he altogether in his cross-examination showed unawareness of the incident and he also categorically admitted in his cross examination that nothing was recovered from the respondents/accused and that no empties were recovered from the place of incident of alleged firing and that he also admitted that civil litigation is going on between 'the appellant and the respondents and that earlier as well F.I.R. Was lodged by the complainant against the appellant which was disposed of in 'B' class and it was not carried forward further. Similarly, in the (evidence of D.W.2 Safdar Shah (Exhibit 13) it was categorically mentioned by such witness being DSP CID that on investigation it was found that there was no sign of any offence at the place of occurrence nor he found any empty from the scene of offence and that he knew both the parties who were entangled in civil litigation with each other and the cases are pending in different courts, and that he further deposed that he was bound by law that he will reduce the contents of the offence if it is reported to him and that he went to the scene and also investigated by the investigation branch but nothing of the sort as transpired in the F.I.R. Came out.
9. In the cross-examination his above assertion could not be dislodged and nothing fruitful for the benefit of the complainant/appellant came out. All this was appreciated by the III-ADJ and it was duly incorporated in the Impugned Judgment and each and every aspect of the matter was looked into thoroughly and thereafter learned HI-ADJ came out with the Impugned Judgment following the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right and for the purpose of granting of benefit of doubt to an accused more than one infirmity is not required and even one was enough and looking at this aspect of the matter the respondents had been acquitted. I have looked into the Impugned Judgment thoroughly and do not find anything which could be interfered with.
10. Therefore, the appeal is found to be merit less and is hereby dismissed in limine.