This appeal has been directed against the judgment of Additional Tehsil Criminal. Court No, II, Kotli dated 30.7.2011, whereby, the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charge by extending them the benefit of doubt.
The brief facts forming background of the instant appeal are that the complainant, Abdul Hakeem lodged a report at Police Station Nar on 29.03.2008 alleging therein that he works abroad and now- a-days, he is in Pakistan. On 25.3.2008 he came back to his home at Pairi-Nar from Rawalpindi. On 26.3.2008 at 9:00 a.m. he alongwith his father, Tasadaq Hussain were sitting in the room of Darran Nar Madrasa of Abdul Rashid. The accused persons namely Abdul Wahid and Zahoor, who are closed relative of the complainant and they have family displeasure with him. The aforesaid accused persons entered into the room and asked them why they came there? He replied that no one could stop him to come there. On this a quarrel took place between _complainant and Abdul Wahid. The accused inflicted injuries to him with iron rod on his right elbow, fingers of right hand, right foot and right shoulder. Whereas, the other accused person, Zahoor inflicted injuries with a stick upon his left leg, left hand and on the other parts of the body. The occurrence was witnessed by his father, Tasadaq Hussain and Ch. Abdul Rashid.
3. On this report, a case under Sections 337/F-1 & 337/F-3, & 34, APC was registered against the accused-respondents. After necessary investigation, the offence under Section 452, APC was added. After completion of investigation, a challan was submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction on 29.4.2008. The statements of accused-respondents were recorded under Section 242, Cr.P.C. on 6.5.2008 and they denied their guilt and opted for the trial of the case. The trial Court directed the prosecution to lead evidence in support of its case. The prosecution produced eight witnesses in support of case and version taken in the F.I.R.
4. After completion of the prosecution evidence, an opportunity was afforded to the accused- respondents under Section 342, Cr.P.C. on 29.1.2011 to furnish their explanation regarding the evidence and all the circumstances appearing against them. The accused-respondents pleaded that they have been implicated in a concocted case and false evidence was produced against them on account of enmity and claimed to be innocent.
5. The learned Tehsil Criminal Court No, II Kotli after completion of the trial acquitted the accused- respondents from the charge by extending them the benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 30.7.2011. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment, the appellant has challenged the aforesaid judgment through instant appeal.
6. Mirza Tariq Mahmood, Advocate the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the trial Court committed grave illegality while recording the impugned judgment, as the prosecution has proved its case by producing solid evidence and it was a fit case for conviction, but the trial Court by misreading and non-reading of evidence arrived at a wrong conclusion. The learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court wrongly and illegally declared the witnesses produced by the prosecution as interested because in case of sudden quarrel, the witnesses present at the place of occurrence are natural witnesses but the trial Court has ignored this important aspect of the case.
According to him, the recovery of crime weapon from the accused-respondents fully connects them with the alleged offences, therefore they were not entitled for any leniency. Finally, the learned counsel prayed that by accepting the appeal, the impugned judgment may be set aside and the accused may also be convicted.
7. On the other hand, Ch. Muhammad Ryas, Advocate the learned counsel for the accused- respondents, while controverting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondents by extending them the benefit of doubt. The learned counsel further contented that the prosecution has badly failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt, as such there was no option for the trial Court except to acquit the accused-respondents. According to learned counsel there are a lot of contradictions among the witnesses of the prosecution and all the witnesses are related and interested, therefore no reliance can be placed upon such kind of evidence, as such the trial Court has rightly discarded their evidence. The learned counsel defended the impugned judgment on all counts.
8. The learned A.A.G, appearing on behalf of the State fully supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with utmost care.
10. A careful perusal of the record reveals that the occurrence took place in the room of Abdul Rashid P.W.3, but he was not brought before the Court by the prosecution for recording his statement. The inference can be drawn that he was not willing to support the prosecution version. It also reveals from the record that P.W.8 Dr. Amir, C.M.O, did not appear before the Court for recording his statement. In case of hurt, statement of the doctor is very much important and best evidence to prove the case and non-production of doctor witness makes the prosecution case doubtful. My this view finds support from a case titled [Abdul Rahim Vs. Muhammad Lair] (1994 SCR 25) wherein it has been observed as under:-- "It may be stated that the Medico-Legal evidence would have been the best evidence to show that in fact the incident took place but the doctor has been neither been cited nor produced as witness by the prosecution. Even according to unproved certificate the alleged fracture of the bone of Sakhi Muhammad, was described as older one, Shabir Ahmed is also cited as one of the eye-witnesses of the occurrence but he has not been produced."
11. It is also relevant to note here that many persons from the locality were present at the place of occurrence but no one was cited as witness and only the related witnesses have been cited. It is worthwhile to mention here that the enmity between the parties was admitted one therefore, the false involvement of accused-respondents is very much there. The recovery witnesses negated the recoveries which were brought before the Court. It is correct that the testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relationship with the complainant and conviction can be based on the statement of a solitary evidence, but in the present case there are exaggerations in the statement of eye-witnesses and their velocity on account of material contradiction in their statements. Keeping in view their enmity with the accused party is doubtful therefore an independent corroboration was necessary. Moreover, in this case the presence of independent witnesses from locality soon after the occurrence is admitted by the prosecution, but none of them has been produced in the Court which also makes the prosecution case doubtful.
12. The prosecution has badly failed to prove its case against the accused-respondents. Although, the prosecution is bound to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts and when the testimony of the eye-witnesses becomes doubtful, the prosecution case as a whole becomes doubtful.
13. It is settled principle of law that in a case of acquittal there is a double presumption of innocence, one on the general principle of law that an accused person is innocent until and unless he is proved guilty and other presumption emanates from the order of acquittal passed in favour of an accused-person.
In view of above, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.