' LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.---Through the instant appeal Mohammad Athar Abbas has impugned the judgment dated 25-5-2013 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, D.I.Khan whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them under sections 324/34/337-A(ii)/109 P.P.C. Vide F.I.R No,240 dated 9-6-2011 registered at Police Station Saddar, D.I.Khan.
2. Short facts of the case are that one Saif-ur-Rehman reported to local police in emergency room of Civil Hospital, D.I. Khan to the effect that he was present in his house on 9-6-2011 when at about 1030 hours somebody knocked at the door on which he came out of his house and saw the respondents-accused along with another unknown person who with their pistols fired at him due to which he was hit on the right upper thigh. On the basis of such report the respondents were booked as accused in the case who were accordingly indicted by the learned trial court on 16-11- 2011 to which they pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
3. Prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused produced nine witnesses whereafter statements of the accused were recorded but neither they examined themselves on oath nor produced any witness in'their defence. The learned trial court after conclusion of the trial found the accused not guilty and vide judgment impugned through this appeal acquitted them.
4. At the very outset learned counsel for the respondents raised objection on the maintainability of the appeal as the same has neither been filed by the state nor by the injured-complainant but by his brother who is only a witness to the occurrence. The learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention argued that the complainant neither appeared before the learned trial court as a witness nor has filed any appeal against the acquittal of the respondents, therefore, the instant appeal preferred by the appellant who is just an ordinary witness is not maintainable as per provisions of section 417(2-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
5. While replying to the preliminary objection qua maintainability of the appeal it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the language used in section 417(2-A) Cr.P.C. Is "a person aggrieved by the order of acquittal" which includes a witness or a relative who feels himself dissatisfied with the finding of acquittal. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant is not only a witness of the case but he is brother of the complainant and firing .Was made on his house by the respondents, therefore, for all intent and purposes of filing appeal he is an aggrieved person and as such the appeal filed by him is maintainable.
6. The learned A.A.-G. While adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents argued that the appellant has no locus standi to file instant appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The legal provision contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding filing of appeal in case of acquittal of accused is reproduced herein below for the purpose of advantages:- "417. Appeal in case of acquittal.---(1) Subject to the provision of subsection (4), the Provincial Government may, in any case direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court.
(2)., (2-A) A person aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court, may, within thirty days, file an appeal against such order."
' In Black's law dictionary word 'aggrieved' has been defined as a person or entity having legal rights that are adversely affected having been harmed by an infringement of legal rights.
9. Perusal of the case F.I.R. Shows that it was Saif-ur-Rehman who reported to local police about the firing made at him by the respondents with which he was hit and sustained injuries on his right thigh. According to the contents of the F.I.R. The only victim of the firing is Saif-ur-Rehman whereas the appellant appeared on the surface when the alleged firing was over. Neither he was hit nor was threatened by the respondents. He is even not a rider of the first information report nor there is any allegation in the F.I.R. That the firing was made on his house for criminal intimidation of its inmates.
10. Record further reveals that the entire controversy was between complainant Saif-ur-Rehman and the respondents while the appellant only figured in and the respondents while the appellant only figured in the case as a witness to the occurrence. He was neither fired upon by the respondents nor criminally intimidated nor any other harm was caused to him in the alleged occurrence. Likewise in the judgment impugned by the appellant through the instant appeal neither any observation has been given against him by the learned trial Court nor he has wrongly been deprived of any of his legal rights. In criminal jurisprudence the matter always remains in between the state, victim and the accused except in the case of murder where legal heirs of a deceased have their right to participate in the court proceedings and to impugn the judgment if they feel themselves aggrieved of it but in the cases of simply bodily hurt no other person can impugn the decision of the trial court in appeal against acquittal except the victim himself or the state in special circumstances.
11. For the above discussion, this Court reaches to a conclusion that as the appellant is not an aggrieved person, therefore, the instant appeal filed by him is not maintainable which is hereby dismissed as such. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.