' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---This appeal against acquittal of respondents/ accused has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order passed by Civil Judge/Magistrate Court No,II, Kotli dated 22-1-2011.
2. Precise facts of the case are that a case was registered on the written report of complainant against the respondents/accused under F.I.R. No,61 of 2009 under sections 147, 148, 149, 337, 341, A.P.C. And 14/EHA at police Station Naar. It was stated in the F.I.R. That on 25-7-2009, the complainant was going to his village from Kotli along with Professor Haseeb-ul-Hassan. They were in the way on foot, the respondents/accused along with. Sakeena Begum and Fatima Begum and some other unknown persons who were armed with hatchets and sticks attacked on complainant and his companion. The complainant and his companion tried to save themselves but they faced some strokes. Meanwhile an amount of Rs,55,700 was dropped out of the complainant's pocket, which was taken by anyone of the accused persons. Abdul Hameed and Subedar Muhammad Sharif witnessed the occurrence.
3. After completion of investigation, a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Was submitted before trial Court under sections 341 and 34, A.P.C. Only on 15-9-2009. Other offences were dropped as not having been proved. Moreover, the said Sakeena Begum and Fatima Begum were also discharged under section 169, Cr.P.C. Having no sufficient and reasonable grounds. The charge was framed on 30-10-2009 under section 242, Cr.P.C. The accused denied the allegations levelled against them and thereafter, the prosecution was ordered to produce witnesses. The statement of one witness Subedar ,Muhammad Sharif was recorded on 7-6-2010. The respondents/accused submitted an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Before the trial court to acquit them. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge/Magistrate Court Noll, Kotli acquitted the accused persons.
' Feeling aggrieved, the complainant Professor Muhammad Hassan preferred the instant appeal before this court. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and Additional Advocate-General.
4. Malik Habib-Ullah Zia Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the learned Judge of the trial Court passed the order of acquittal ignoring the facts and provisions of law. Only one witness appeared before the court, while other five (5) witnesses were left whose statements had to be recorded. The complainant including two (2) eye-witnesses and Investigating Officer are the witnesses whose statements were not recorded till passing of the said acquittal order. The learned counsel argued further that the complainant and prosecution could be given a chance to produce their evidence in support of the prosecution version but the same was not given. The learned Judge of the trial court relied on the statement of only one witness and passed his order ignoring the facts of the case and provisions of law. The learned Judge had no material to justify the order of acquittal. The learned counsel requested to set aside the said acquittal order and to remand the case to proceed afresh in accordance with law and referred the following precedents in support of his arguments.
5. While controverting the learned counsel for the appellant, Raja Shehnaz Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused contended that the order under appeal was passed by the trial Judge based on sound and cogent reasons. The story narrated by the complainant in his report at police station was strongly contradicted during investigation and majority of the offences were not proved. Even two (2) ladies were mentioned in the F.I.R. Who were discharged under section 169, Cr.P.C. During investigation. The witness whose statement was recorded, clearly contradicted the prosecution story. The learned counsel requested to dismiss the instant appeal.
6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have examined the record of the trial Court and the precedents, which have been referred by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, with utmost care. The record reveals that six (6) prosecution witnesses have been incorporated in the report submitted before the trial Court. Out of them, the statement of only one witness No,4 Subedar Muhammad Sharif was recorded who was an eye- witness. Thereafter, the respondents/accused submitted an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. And the learned Judge passed the order under appeal, ignoring the remaining witnesses including the 'complainant two (2) more eye-witnesses Haseeb-ul-Hassan and Abdul Hameed, Javaid Hussain Investigating Head-constable and Raja Gul Nisar Khan Station House Officer Police Station Naar whom statements were to be recorded. Although, the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 337, 341, A.P.C. And 14/EHA were not proved during investigation and two (2) nominated accused Sakeena Begum and Fatima Begum were discharged under section.169, Cr.P.C., but these facts cannot be made a base for acquittal of remaining accused persons in remaining offences, which were proved A during investigation. The trial Magistrate was duty bound to record the statements of remaining witnesses and thereafter to pass any appropriate order. Prosecution was not given an appropriate chance to produce its witnesses. If one eye-witness contradicts or even denies the story of Prosecution, the accused persons cannot be acquitted on the basis of the statement of the said single witness. The learned trial Judge had no sufficient evidence on record to justify the order of acquittal and the same had resulted in miscarriage of justice. Such like order was of no legal effect. These principles have been laid down in the precedents referred by the learned counsel for. The appellant/complainant. Moreover, the accused persons can be convicted in the offences dropped by the police during investigation, if those offences are proved later on by the remaining important witnesses in their statements. In the light of what has been discussed above, the order of acquittal under appeal is, not sustainable at all, which is hereby set aside.
The case is remanded to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the case after recording evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses and giving chance to the respondents/accused to produce evidence in defence if adviseable.