ORDER ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J. - Appellant/State by way of the instant appeal has challenged the acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 recorded by Malik Muhammad Riaz, Magistrate 1st Class, Vehari vide his judgment dated 12.05.2010 in case F.I.R. No. 394/06, dated 16.07.2006 registered under Sections 447, 379,148,149, P.P.C, at Police Station, Sadar Vehari.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that the above-mentioned case was got registered by Mst. Sakina Bibi (P. W.l) against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for the offences mentioned above. They were formally charged to which they plead&l not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution at trial produced its evidence. However, on the conclusion of the trial, evidence. However, on the conclusion of the trial, learned Magistrate 1st Class, Vehari, acquitted respondents Nos. 1 to 3 vide judgment dated 12.05.2010.
3. The appellant/State feeling dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 12-05.2010 has come to this Court with this appeal.
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is against the law and facts and the learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence recorded during the trial and passed judgment merely on conjecture and surmises. It was' further argued that the prosecution proved its case through-confidence inspiring evidence which is available on the file in the shape of deposition of PWs. According to learned D.P.G, the fact of restoration of possession of the disputed property to the complainant shows that occurrence had taken place as narrated b the complainant in the F.I.R.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made on his behalf of the appellant and gone through the impugned judgment.
5. It has been observed by this Court that no recovery of alleged stolen property has been effected from the possession of the accused/respondents. The complainant in her examination-in-chief deposed that the occurrence took place in her absence. Similarly PW-3 Irshad Ahmad who claims to have witnessed the occurrence admitted in his cross-examination that he held no know ledge of the occurrence. It has also been observed by this Court that both the witnesses apart from the complainant were not the residents of the area where the occurrence took place so, they could be termed as chance witnesses. Further- more, it has come on record during trial of the case that complainant and accused persons have adjacent property, with each other and accused persons purchased property from complainant's husband with a valuable consideration and the possession was peacefully handed over to the accused party. According to Mark D-A, both the parties are co-sharer in the land where the alleged occurrence had taken place. Even otherwise, during remand nothing was recovered from the accused persons and there is a delay of seven days in lodging the F.I.R. It has also been-observed by this Court that according to Ex.D.A. The accused persons were acquitted from complaint filed under Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.
6. The learned Trial Court has analyzed the evidence in its background and observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case and therefore, acquitted respondents Nos. 1 to 3 from the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt. I, thus, do not find force in the contention raised on behalf of the appellant because the learned Trial Court has advanced many reasons to acquit accused/respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and it seems to have been after due appreciation of the evidence on the record.
6. It has also not been found that the conclusion drawn by the learned Trial Court is neither perverse, arbitrary nor against the record. It is settled principle of law that every person, initially, is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty and when he is found otherwise and is acquitted of the charge, then there is a double presumption of innocence in favour of accused. Even otherwise, the case pertains to the year 2006 and accused/respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have faced the agony of trial/litigation for a long period spreading over about six years.
7. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the finding of the learned Trial Court regarding the acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 3. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed in limine.