1. ' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---The appellant has impugned the judgment dated 15-7-2013 passed by the IInd Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Shikarpur in Crime No,01 of 2013 Police Station Jabir Shaikh under sections 506/2, 147, 148, 114, 504 P.P.C. Whereby learned Magistrate by extending benefit of doubt to the respondents Nos.1 to 7 were acquitted.
2. ' The facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell are that on 16-2-2013 at about 1810 hours complainant Dhani Bux lodged F.I.R. Alleging therein that his dispute on forest property was going on with Sikander and others/respondents. On 16-2-2013 he, his son Photo and nephew Rais Gindq, while going towards Madeji when at about 4.00 p.m. They reached near Pir Haji Umar, respondents, namely, Sikander with gun, All with hatchet, Peeral with T.T pistol, Meeral with hatchet, Darya Khan and Altaf with lathis and Ghulamullah with gun came there; and accused Darya instigated co- accused to commit murder of the complainant party but on the intervention of P.Ws. Accused ran away.
3. ' To prove the case, complainant Dhani Bux, his father Ghulam Fareed, nephew Rais Gindo and A.S.- I. Ayaz I.O. Of the case were examined.
4. ' The statements of accused under section 342 Cr.P.C. Were recorded, wherein they denied the allegations. They plead their innocence and false implication due to dispute over land with the complainant party.
5. ' The trial Court on assessm ent of the evidence so far brought on record came to the following conclusion, regarding ocular account produced by the prosecution:-- "Now what appears is that, the prosecution witnesses gave contradictory statements as the complainant deposed in chief examination that accused fought with him with lathies, while he retracted from this aspect in cross-examination. Complainant in his F.I.R. Averred that they were, coming towards Madeji, while in Court they deposed that after leaving the city at 3.00 p.m. They were about to reach at their home. Complainant as per F.I.R. And his statement deposed that his son Photo and Rais Gindo was with him at the time of occurrence as well as at the time of F.I.R., while eye-witness Rais Gindo deposed that Qadir Bux and Ghulam Fareed also came at the time of occurrence; made entreats to accused party, Ghulam Fareed mashir of the case also deposed that he went to rescue the complainant and also accompany with them upto F.I.R. Complainant deposed that he called the mashir and thereafter went to visit site, while mashir who happens to be father of complainant deposed that he was already available there and at his own joined the investigation team. Complainant deposed that police came at site for its visit at 7.00 a.m, while mashir deposed for 8 or 9-00 a.m. But the memo of place speaks its preparation timings as 1400 hours. Mashir denied that he never acts as mashir of arrest, while I.O. Deposed that arrest was made in presence of mashir Ghulam Fareed. I.O. Deposed that complainant party illegally occupied forest land since last two decades. Ghulam Fareed deposed that he heard cries of his son Dhani Bux and when he rushed to rescue his son he saw accused Sikander, Peeral, Darya Khan and Pisand, while complainant never deposed for making cries. I.O. Deposed that alleged place of incident is a busy path situated in thickly populated area, but even then mashirs are very close relatives of complainant."
6. ' The trial court having disbelieved the prosecution evidence by giving them benefit of doubt acquitted the respondents Nos.1 to 7.
7. ' Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has contended that the evidence of the related and inimical witnesses can be relied upon and merely on the said score it cannot be brushed aside. He has further contended that enmity is a double edged sword which usually cuts both ends and that the observation of the trial Court appears to be contrary to law. It is further contended that appellant made out a case for bringing the guilt of the respondents at home and thereby the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the case of Muhammad Ali v. Muhammad Yaqoob and 3 others (1998 SCM R 1814) and Amal Sherin and another v. The State through A.G. N.W.F.P (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 371).
8. ' I have given careful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and gone through the R & Ps.
9. Principles for appraisal of evidence in an appeal against acquittal are altogether different from the appeal against conviction. Once an accused is acquitted by a competent Court of law after facing the agonies of trial, then he earns the presumption of double innocence which can not be set at naught by the appellate Court slightly unless it is established on the basis of available evidence that the impugned judgment of acquittal is perverse, fanciful or has resulted into grave miscarriage of justice. This dictum is laid down in the case of Barkat All v. Shaukat All and others, reported in 2004 SCM R 249.
10. In view of the above dicta laid down in the aforesaid case-law I 1 B have examined the evidence produced by the prosecution. Admittedly, the enmity existed between the parties over forest land. It is also an admitted fact on record that P.W Photo and Rais Gindo are son and nephew of the complainant but P.W Photo was not examined in the case. During trial it has also come on record that mashirs P.W Qadir Bux, and Ghulam Fareed are also Father and Brother of the complainant thus whole case of the prosecution is based on interested and hostile witnesses as such their evidence requires close scrutiny.
11. ' There are major contradictions in the statements of alleged eyewitnesses. The complainant has contradicted his own version given in the F.I.R. As per F.I.R. The incident had taken place when complainant and P.Ws. Were returning towards Madeji while in Court they have deposed that after leaving city at 4-00 p.m. They were about to reach their home where this incident took place.
12. Complainant stated in the F.I.R. And deposition that P.Ws. Photo and Rais Gindo were with him at the time of alleged occurrence while eye witness Rais Gindo deposed that Qadir Bux and Ghulam Fareed were also available with them at the time of incident. If indicates that either the alleged eye-witnesses were not together with complainant at the time of incident or it has not taken place as is alleged by the prosecution. In such circumstances, the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses is not trust worthy and confidence inspiring, thus independent corroboration was necessary which is lacking in this case. In this respect reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Irshad and another v. The State, 1999 SCM R 1030.
13. ' In the circumstances discussed above, I have come to the conclusion that the respondents have succeeded to create shadow of doubt upon prosecution case and the trial Court has rightly acquitted accused/respondents. The appellant has failed to make a case for taking cognizance under section 417 Cr.P.C. Before this Court. Consequently this Criminal Acquittal Appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine.