' ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN KHAKWANI, J. --- This appeal under Section 417(2-A) of the Cr.P.C. Filed by Kashif Hussain complainant/appellant, is directed against the acquittal earned by respondents No, 2 and 3 through judgment dated 13.2.2002 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur in case F.I.R. No, 116 of 2000 under Section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Musafir Khana of Distt. Bahawalpur.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution story as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 15.4.2000 at about 12.00 noon Arif Hussain, Sharaf Hussain, Sabir Hussain and Qasim Hussain Shah were present in the graveyard of Kot Dadu Ghallu for sprinkling water and for repairing the graves, when Sabir Hussain armed with 12 bore gun, Qasim Hussain, respondent No, 2 and Ashiq co-accused armed with carbines and Abdul Rehman respondent No, 4 armed with Soti came there. All of them raised lalkara that the complainant party will be given a taste for quarrelling with Mst. Zaibu Mai.
Thereafter Sabir Hussain accused fired a shot with his .12 bore gun hitting on abdomen of Sharaf Hussain as also chest and abdomen of Qasim Hussain Shah. He fired second shot hitting Arif Hussain on upper portion of abdomen and inner side of left thigh. Abdul Rehman respondent No, 4 gave Soti blows to the complainant landing on wrist of his left arm and shoulder. He also gave Soti blows hitting on left elbow and between eye and ear of Jabir Hussain. He gave further blows with Soti to Muhammad Nawaz on little finger of his right hand. Qasim Hussain respondent and Ashiq Husain co-accused kept on raising Lalkaras and making fires in the air. It was alleged that on hue and cry of the complainant party Allah Ditta, Muhammad Nawaz and Riaz Ahmad present in the graveyard were attracted and the accused seeing them ran away from the spot. The complainant party took the injured persons to the hospital out of which Arif Hussain succumbed to the injuries.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record gone through with their help.
4. It may be noted at the very outset that none of the injuries sustained by Arif Hussain deceased was attributed to any of the respondents rather they were only attributed injuries caused on the persons of Sharaf, Kashif Hussain, Jabir Hussain and Muhammad Nawaz PWs which are on non- vital parts of their bodies. The eye-witnesses while appearing in the witness-box tried to improve their case and changed the stance as already narrated in the F.I.R. Because the ocular account about the detail of occurrence was totally conflicting with the medical evidence. In the light of statements of the witnesses, the recovery in this case becomes inconsequential. The main accused in this case is still absconder. The prosecution miserably failed to prove its case before the Trial Court beyond any shadow of doubt. The accused/respondents were arrested on 23.4.2000 and remained in jail till 13.2.2002. Thus they faced the rigors of investigation before police, underwent the agony of trial spreading over about two years and thereafter earned the acquittal.
5. While dealing with the cases titled The State through Mehmood Ahmad Butt v. Sharaf-ud-Din Sheikh (2013 SCM R 565), Shahid Abbas v. Shahbaz (2009 SCM R 237), Haji Paio Khan v. Sher Biaz (2009 SCM R 803), Muhammad Aslam v. Sabir Hussain and others (2009 SCM R 985), Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State (2004 SCM R 1185) and Muhammad Mansha Kausar v. Muhammad Asghar and others (2003 SCM R 477), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when an accused is acquitted of the charge, he enjoys double presumption of innocence in his favour and Courts seized with appeal against acquittal under Section 417, Cr.P.C. Are obliged to be very careful in dislodging such presumption. It has also been held by the apex Court in Ghulam Sikander and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 11) that the Appellate Court seized with the appeal of acquittal is competent to interfere in the order challenged before it if it has been established that the Trial Court has disregarded the material evidence or misread such evidence or received such evidence illegally.
6. On the touchstone of the principle mentioned hereinabove we have gone through the evidence and found that no illegality and infirmity or material piece of evidence could be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant which could lead to infer that the order of acquittal was arbitrary, perverse, based on non-reading or misreading of the evidence.
7. The case of the prosecution before the Trial Court was full of doubts which resulted into passing of judgment in question extending benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The benefit of slightest doubt coming out from the circumstances in favour of the accused person, shaking the roots of the case must be extended to the accused persons, as held in the cases of Siyar Muhammad v.
The State and others (2014 P.Cr.L.J. 354), Muhammad Yris v. Zulfikar Ali and 10 others (2014 YLR 10) and Nuzhat Bibi v. Shabbir Hussain and 2 others (2008 YLR 2866) [SC(AJ & K)].
8. In view of what has been noticed and discussed above, we find that the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge is in line with the evidence on the file and no infirmity or illegality is found in the same. We are not inclined to interfere in the well-reasoned verdict of acquittal. Resultantly, this appeal having no force is hereby dismissed. Criminal .