ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, J.---Through instant Criminal Appeal under section 417(2-A) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, the appellant/complainant has assailed the judgment dated 21-10- 2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Nawabshah in Direct Complaint/Criminal Case No,290 of 2013 (old Case No,98 of 2010), whereby the respondents/accused were acquitted of the charge by extending them the benefit of doubt.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 1-8-2008 the appellant/complainant, namely, Shah Nawaz filed a direct complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Nawabshah under sections 324, 506(2), 147, 148, 149, P.P.C. Read with section 17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 against the respondents/accused, namely, (1)
Muhkamuddin (2) Ahmed Din (3) Rukandin (4) Ikramuddin all sons of Mehardin (5) Ashraf and (6)
Sajjad both sons of Ikramuddin, alleging therein that he had stood as surety for Ikram and others in a direct compliant/criminal case, filed by the accused Muhkamddin, on that the accused became annoyed and they used to issue threats for dire consequences to him. On 9-6-2008 in between 1- 00 to 2-00 p.m. He and his brother, namely, Sarfraz Ahmed were present at their shop when all the accused having iron rods, lathis and dandas came and abused him asking as to why he had stood surety for Ikram and others in their direct complaint, then accused Muhkamuddin and Rukandin caused danda blow at show-case and broken the glasses. On their protest all the accused persons caused danda and iron rod blows to him and his brother with intention to commit their murder on that they fell down. Thereafter, accused Muhkamuddin and Rukandin took out Rs,1,08,000 from iron safe of the shop. The accused persons also robbed gold chain from his brother Faraz Ahmed and gold ring from him and also snatched one mobile phone. They raised cries on that Ikramuddin son of Kabeeruddin, Ikramuddin son of Allah Bux and others reached there and saved them and accused went away abusing and issuing them threats for murder and dire consequences.
Thereafter, he and his brother went to police station "A" Section, Nawabshah, where police having entered his report in daily diary issued letter for treatment and after receiving medical certificate, he went to police station for registration of F.I.R. But police did not register the case due to influence of accused and then on the Order of learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Nawabshah, passed on an application under section 22-A(6)(i) of Cr.P.C., police registered his F.I.R.
Bearing No,127/2008, under sections 337-L(2), 427, 147, 148, 149 and 403, P.P.C., but after investigation, the Investigating Officer recommended the case for disposal in cancel clause.
Thereafter, the complainant filed the instant Direct Complaint.
3. After institution of direct complaint, the trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200, Cr.P.C. And conducted preliminary inquiry wherein statements of three witnesses of complainant were recorded under section 202 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the learned trial Court took the cognizance of the offence under section 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 337-L(2) and 427, P.P.C.
4. In compliance of section 241-A of Cr.P.C., the copies of relevant statements/document were supplied to accused persons at Exh.l. Formal charge for the offence under sections 337-A(i), 337- F(i), 337-L(2) and 427, P.P.C. Was framed against the accused persons at Exh.2 to which they pleaded not guilty; their plea recorded at Exhs.2/A to 2/F. As such, the matter was fixed for evidence of prosecution's witnesses.
5. At the trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses. Complainant Shah Nawaz examined as P.W-1 at Exh.3; Muhammad Ikramuddin examined as P.W-2 at Exh.4; Faraz Ahmed examined as P.W-3 at Exh.5; Dr. Muhammad Ayoob, MLO examined as P.W-4 at Exh.6, who produced police letter for Examination and Treatment bearing No,1057 dated 9-6-2008, photocopy of Provisional Medico Legal Certificate of 'complainant, bearing No,190 dated 10-6-2008, Medico Legal X-Ray report of complainant (without X-Ray plate) bearing OPD No,12184 dated 9-6-2008, photocopy of Final Medico Legal Certificate of complainant dated 14-6-2008 at Exh.6/A to 6/E. Complainant's side for evidence was closed by statement dated 5-11-2011 at Exh.7.
6. Statements of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded at Exh.8 to Exh.13, wherein the accused persons claiming innocence denied the allegations leveled against them. Accused Rukandin further deposed that the P. Ws have deposed against them due to enmity as their father Mehardin was murdered in the year 2006 and such FIR was registered wherein P.W. Ikram and his brother are accused; the case is pending in the Court, and they deposed against them just to blackmail them. They, however, neither examined themselves on oath nor led evidence in their defense.
7. After assessing the evidence on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Nawabshah acquitted (he accused under section 245(i) Cr.P.C., vide judgment dated 21-10-2013. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has preferred this Criminal Appeal.
8. Heard the appellant/complainant, respondents and Mr. Shahid Ahmed Shaikh, learned A.P.G.
Sindh, and perused the material available on record.
9. The appellant/complainant has contended that the learned trial Court while acquitting the respondents/accused failed to appreciate the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses, who have fully supported the prosecution's case. He has further contended that even the trial Court did not consider the injuries sustained by him, which were verified by the MLO Dr. Muhammad Ayoob; as such, the trial Court has taken lenient view, while deciding the case which is sheer injustice with him; therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondents/accused are liable to be convicted.
10. On the other hand, the respondents and learned A.P.G. For the State while refuting the appellant supported the impugned judgment. The gist of their contention is that the impugned judgment is well reasoned and speaking one, which does not require interference of this Court.
11. The learned trial Court while assessing the evidence on record has found that P.W. Ikram has admitted that he is facing the trial of murder case of the father of accused and so also trial in Direct Complaint filed by the accused party. In addition, the complainant has also admitted that besides P.W. Ikram, his brother-in-law Umar Daraz and Amir are also facing said murder trial. In view of such grave enmity, the evidence of P.W Ikram against the accused is not safe, reliable and free from doubts. Trial Court has also observed that the alleged incident has taken place in the shop of complainant situated in main market of Nawabshah in between 1-00 to 2-00 p.m. But no independent witness was associated and examined by the complainant; therefore, under such conditions the case is highly doubtful. Trial Court has as well scrutinized that MLO Dr. Muhammad Ayoob, instead of producing original Provisional and Final Medico Legal Certificates during his evidence, has produced photocopies thereof which are inadmissible under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1979; he has also not produced the X-Ray and admitted that injuries No, 1 and 2 on the person of P.W. Faraz cannot be caused with hard and blunt substance while injuries No,3 and 4 can be caused even from falling on road; he has also admitted that the history of the injuries were noted by him according to the version of injured. Trial Court has, therefore, observed that it cannot be ruled out that actually the complainant party has filed instant Direct Complaint just to pressurizing the accused persons in order to bring them on their terms for their withdrawal from murder trial of their father Mehardin which is being faces by P.W. Ikram and brothers-in-law of complainant, namely, Umar Daraz and Amir. In such circumstances of the case, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged holding that the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
12. I do not find any merit in arguments of appellant/complainant. The learned trial Court has recorded the reasons for its judgment of acquittal which are based on evidence on record and the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court as to the innocence of accused is appropriate. It is well settled principle of law that for basing conviction against an accused there should be strong evidence before the trial Court and if the doubt, even slightest, arises in the prudent mind as to the guilt of the accused, benefit of the same has to be extended in favour of the accused.
13. The extraordinary remedy of an appeal against an acquittal is different from an appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence because presumption of double innocence of the accused is attached to the order of acquittal. Thus, on the examination of the, order of acquittal as whole, credence is accorded to the findings of the subordinate Court, whereby the accused had been exonerated from the charge of commission of the offence. Therefore, to reverse an order of acquittal, it must be shown that the acquittal order is unreasonable, perverse and manifestly wrong. The order of acquittal passed by the trial Court which is based on correct appreciation of evidence will not warrant interference in appeal. Honourable Supreme Court while dealing with the appeal against acquittal has been pleased to lay down the principle in the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Raza and another, reported in 2008 SCMR 329, as under: "An accused is presumed to be innocent in law and if after regular trial he is acquitted, he earns a double presumption of innocence and there is a heavy onus on the prosecution to rebut the said presumption. In view of the discrepant and inconsistent evidence led, the guilt of accused is not free from doubt, we are therefore, of the view that the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus and the finding of acquittal is neither arbitrary nor capricious to warrant interference."
14. In view of above reasons, the impugned acquittal order does not suffer from any illegally or infirmity and misreading or non-reading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice; therefore, the same is not open for interference by the High Court under section 417(2), Cr.P.C.
15. By my short order dated 24-11-2014, the criminal acquittal appeal was dismissed and above is the reasons for the said order.