' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---This appeal filed by Saifullah Khan son of Khan Muhammad is directed against the judgment dated 7-8-2003 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sibi Division, Sibi, by which the learned trial Court acquitted respondents Muhammad Hanif son of Ellahi Bakhsh, Dr. Muhammad Azeem son of Ellahi Bakhsh, Muhammad Shakeel son of Wazir Muhammad, Muhammad Wakeel son of Wazir Muhammad, Peer Muhammad son of Chaghardi and Abdul Baqi son of Peer Muhammad, in case F.I.R. No,40 of 2000, dated 29-12-2000 Police Station Sui, District Dera Bugti from the charge under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 427/ 353/186/147/149, P.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Saifullah Khan got registered F.I.R. No,40 of 2000 (Exh.P/1-A) at Police Station, Sui, District Dera Bugti on 29-12-2000 wherein he stated that he was performing his duty at Gate No,5 of Suifield, when one person namely Muhammad Hanif came in a vehicle, who was stopped and asked by him for identification pass, upon this said Muhammad Hanif became displeased and he went back. After a while he came back and about 50/60 people gathered at the gate, Hanif threw the gate pass and asked him to check it. The complainant further alleged that Hanif started abusing him and in the meanwhile Dr. Muhammad Azeem also came inside and caught him by neck and gave a slap and tried to snatch official rifle. It was further alleged that 50/60 people came inside and started beating him and torn off his uniform and Dr. Azeem snatched his rifle. On hearing hue and cry Sepoy Ghulam Rasool, Samiulfah and Dilshad reached there and tried to retrieve back the rifle but the assailants also beaten them, however, Sepoy Ghulam Rasool succeeded in getting back the rifle and Dr. Azeem and Hanif fled away along with magazine and 15 rounds.
3. The case was duly investigated; the respondents were arrested and statements of the P.Ws.
Were recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted in the trial Court against the accused/respondents, under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The learned trial Court on receipt of challan framed the following charge against all the accused on 22-5-2001:- "I Muhammad Abdullah Khan, Sessions Judge, Sibi Division, Sibi hereby charge you:---
(1) Muhammad Hanif and,
(2) Dr. Azeem sons of Haji Ellahi Bakhsh,
(3) Muhammad Waked,
(5) Muhammad Shakeel son of Wazir Muhammad,
(4) Peer Muhammad son of Chaghardi.
(5) Abdul Baqi son of Peer Muhammad ' All by caste Marhata Bugti. As follows:- "This is alleged that on 29th December, 2000 at 4-00 a.m. At Gate No,5 Sui Field all of you in furtherance of common intention forcibly snatched the official rifle from Saifullah Guard Incharge/ Sepoy of II D.S.G. Battalion who was on official duty and also abused, assaulted him and tore off his. Offivial uniform, you have thus committed offence punishable under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 427/353/186/147/149,P.P.C. Within the cognizance of this Court.
' And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court on the said charge".
' The accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 6 witnesses at the trial. The prosecution also produced the following documents, besides other connected documents:--
(i) Application for registration of case Exh.P/1-A .
(ii) Recovery Memo (One telephone and wires set and one Khaki shirt` Exh.P/3-A.
(iii) Site Plan Exh.P/6-B.
(iv) Site of occurrence/site plan Exh, P/6-C .
' As the oral evidence of the P.Ws. Has already been noted in detail by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment, therefore, the same need not be reproduced in this judgment, in order to avoid repetition and wastage of time. However, the same would be examined, discussed and evaluated in the subsequent paras where need be.
6. The learned trial Court after close of the prosecution evidence recorded statements of respondents Muhammad Hanif, Dr. Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Shakeel, -Muhammad Wakeel, Peer Muhammad and Abdul Baqi under section 342 of. The Code of Criminal Procedure who denied the prosecution case and pleaded as innocent.
7. After hearing both the parties the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents namely Muhammad Hanif, Dr. Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Shakeel, Muhammad Wakeel, Peer Muhammad and Abdul Baqi from the charge under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 427/353/186/147/149, P. P. C . Hence this appeal.
8. It would not be out of place to mention here that originally this appeal was filed against six persons arrayed as respondents 1 to 6. However, vide order dated 7-10-2004 this Court opted to issue notice to respondents 1 and 2 namely Muhammad Hanif and Dr. Muhammad Azeem only.
Since, remaining respondents 3 to 6 were never summoned, therefore, this -appeal to their extent shall be considered as dismissed in limine.
9. Mr. Muhammad Bilal, learned counsel for appellant Saifullah Khan argued that though the appellant has not been able to produce the proof of allegation against respondents covered by section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and as well as sections 147 and 149 P.P.C., yet he has fully established the offences against respondents 1-2 falling under sections 427/ 353/186, P.P.C., therefore, to this extent the judgment of the learned trial Court was erroneous and liable to be reversed. Learned counsel further argued that the appellant at the relevant time was performing his, official duty in connection with defence establishment viz guard duty at Sui Field and the interference by both the respondents not only by snatching rifle but also damaging government property i.e, telephone etc. And further slapping the appellant would definitely amount to commission of offences covered by sections 147/353/186, P.P.C. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that to this extent the acquittal of respondents was not warranted and the judgment of the learned trial Court was liable to be reversed.
10. On the other hand, Mr. M. Amin K. Jan learned counsel for respondents argued that as the appellant miserably failed to prove the allegation against the respondents, therefore, the learned trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents of the said charges. Learned counsel further argued that as it was a case of two versions per law one adopted by the appellant had to be accepted.
Learned counsel further argued that as the prosecution failed to produce any evidence against the respondents through independent witness and further no one on behalf of the Sui Gas Management came, forward to support the allegation of complainant/appellant,therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant was not right in arguing, that the respondents were guilty of causing interference in the performance of official duty of the appellant and damaging the government property specially when neither the said property was produced in evidence at the time of recording of evidence before the learned trial Court nor there was ,any evidence on the record to prove that the respondents caused damages to the government property. Finally, learned counsel for the respondents by placing reliance on 2010 SCM R 222 and 2009 SCM R 946 argued that since the appellant has failed to show that the judgment of the learned trial Court acquitting the respondents was wrong, or not reasonable, therefore, this appeal is not maintainable.
11. Learned counsel for the State namely Mr. Muhammad Sharif Janjua, Advocate though half- heartedly supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant yet simultaneously conceded that in view of the law declared by the apex Court regarding judgment of acquittal this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court.
12. Arguments considered: Record perused.
13. Before further proceedings, we would like to reproduce the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in the above noted judgment and several other judgments regarding jurisdiction of appellate Court for interference with judgment of acquittal. The law declared by the Apex Court on the above noted question is; "important test is that the finding sought to be interfered with should be found wholly artificial, shocking and ridiculous after scrutiny":
14. In the light of the above, noted criteria, we have scrutinized the evidence produced by the prosecution and have also examined the above noted contention of the learned counsel for the parties.
15. The appellant/ complainant appeared as P.W.1 and in support of his evidence he produced two witnesses namely P. W . 2 Dilshad Ahmed and P VV. 4 Samiullah. The evidence of P.W.1 complainant is not corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 Dilshad Ahmed and P.W.4 Samiullah. According to the complainant P.W.1 he was abused and also given slapped by both the respondents/ accused, but P.W.2 and P.W.4 have not specified the names of respondents but they had stated that mob of 30/40 people attacked the appellant and the accused after damaging telephone set ran away from the scene, we further observe that the prosecution evidence is not only contradictory but do not inspire confidence and the learned trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the private respondents, even the damaged telephone set etc. And rifle allegedly snatched by the accused/ respondents was neither produced in the Court at the time of recording of evidence as a case property nor marked as "Exhibit" in order to attract the provision of section 427, P.P.C. We also find that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient for holding the respondents guilty of causing interference in the performance of official duty by the appellant. The fact that after appeal against six persons the appellant remained content when this Court issued notices to the private responders 1 and 2 only vide order dated 7- 10-2004 also shows mala fide on his part. Even no one appeared on behalf of the Sui Gas Department to support the prosecution version which was very material evidence. Despite repeatedly asked learned counsel for the appellant failed to point out that the judgment of the learned trial Court impugned in this appeal was either wrong, artificial, shocking or ridiculous or suffered from misreading or non-reading of evidence within the parameters of law declared by the apex Court in the above noted judgments.
16. We, therefore, feel that the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment neither committed any illegality, infirmity nor misreading or non-reading of evidence warranting interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. Hence, this appeal has no force and the same is dismissed.