Through this petition under Section 417(2)-A Cr.P.C., Maqbool Ahmad petitioner/complainant seeks grant of Special Leave to file Appeal against Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2 who was acquitted by learned Magistrate Section 30, Liaqatpur District Rahim Yar Khan, aide judgment dated 02.04.2012 in a private complaint titled "Maqbool Ahmad Vs: Muhammad Akhtar & others".
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contended that petitioner filed the aforementioned private complaint under Section 379, PPC against Muhammad Akhtar Respondents No. Khalid Nawaz and Muhammad Jamil; that learned trial Court only summoned Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2 to face trial whereas complaint filed to the extent of Khalid Nawaz and Muhammad Jamil was dismissed; that in order to prove case against Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2 Maqbool Ahmad complainant himself appeared before the learned trial Court as PW-1 whereas Muhammad Iqbal son of Wahab Din was produced as PW-2; that both the witnesses fully corroborated the prosecution story as narrated by the complainant in the private complaint; that the prosecution by producing trust worthy and reliable evidence established before the learned trial Court that 'Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2 committed theft of buffalo and calf belonging to the complainant; that learned trial Court acquitted Respondent No. 2 without proper appraisal of evidence which has resulted into miscarriage of justice; that the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2012 passed by learned trial Court whereby Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2 was acquitted is perverse and has been passed against the principles enunciated by the Superior Courts in this regard; that Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2 has been acquitted on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Thus, it is submitted that special leave to file appeal against the acquittal of Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2 be granted to the petitioner.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant and perused the record with care.
4. It has been noticed that initially regarding the same occurrence petitioner/complainant lodged a case FIR No. 183/2006 dated 29.04.2006, offence under Section 379, PPC against Muhammad Akhtar, Khalid Nawaz and Muhammad Jmail at P.S. Liaqatpur district Rahim Yar Khan. During investigation, police came to the conclusion that Maqbool Ahmad complainant lodged a false case against Respondent No. 2 and others on account of civil and criminal litigation pending between the parties and the aforementioned case was recommended for cancellation by the police. Thereafter, petitioner/complainant filed a private complaint against Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2, Khalid Nawaz and Muhammad Jamil. Learned trial Court summoned Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2 to face the trial whereas complaint to the extent of Khalid Nawaz and Muhammad Jamil was dismissed. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced Maqbool Ahmad petitioner/complainant as PW. 1 whereas Muhammad Iqbal son of. Wahab Din was produced as PW.2 before learned trial Court. Perusal of evidence of both the prosecution witnesses reveals that it was an unseen occurrence. Foot prints of the culprits were traced by the complainant party which ended at the house of Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2 but foot tracker was never produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court to substantiate this fact. According to the prosecution witnesses they saw that buffalo was available in the house of Muhammad Jamil whereas calf was available in the, house of Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2 but learned counsel for the petitioner categorically stated before me that buffalo and calf was not recovered from the possession of the. accused/Respondent No. 2 during investigation. All the three accused persons allegedly confessed their guilt before a 'Punchayat' that they had committed theft of buffalo and calf of the complainant and promised to return the same but ultimately refused to do so. The evidence of extra judicial confession produced by the prosecution was joint one which was inadmissible in evidence.
5. Perusal of impugned judgment further reveals that civil and criminal litigation was pending between petitioner/complainant and Muhammad Akhtar Respondent No. 2, therefore, false involvement of Respondent No. 2 in the instant complaint case on account of enmity, cannot be ruled out.
6. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2012 which is based on well settled principles of appreciation of evidence. It has further been noticed that prosecution has not produced sufficient incriminating evidence to prove the charge of theft against Respondents No. 2, therefore, the impugned judgment did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality calling for interference by this Court.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition for special leave to appeal is dismissed in limine.