' The petitioner faced trial in case FIR No, 406/2004, registered under Sections 344,337F(i),337A(i), PPC read with Article 155 of Police Order, 2002 with Police Station Gaggo, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari and at the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 19.02.2009 convicted and sentenced the petitioner in the following manner:
1. Under Section 344, PPC, ten months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs, 2000/- and in defeult whereof to further undergo for ten days S.I.
2. Under Section 337A(i), PPC, to pay Rs, 2000/- as 'daman' and simple imprisonment for two months.
3. Under Section 337F(i), PPC, to pay Rs, 2000/- as 'daman' and simple imprisonment for two months.
4. Under Article 155 Police Order, 2002, to ten months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs, 2000/- and in default whereof to further undergo for 10 days S.I.
' Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the petitioner.
2. Against this conviction and sentence, an appeal was preferred and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Burewala vide judgment dated 19.09.2009 dismissed the same by upholding conviction and sentence of the petitioner.
3. Brief history of the case is that the petitioner was posted as ASI at the Police Station where he illegally confined one Allah Ditta and physically tortured him. The said Allah Ditta was recovered on the orders of the High Court and medically examined whereafter the petitioner has been implicated in the case in hand. Report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Was forwarded to the Court where statements of six prosecution witnesses were recorded as the petitioner did not plead guilty to the charge. All the incriminating material led by the prosecution was confronted to the petitioner by recording his statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he negated all the allegations and produced Muhammad Ashraf retired S.I. As DW-1 in his defence. The petitioner did not make statement on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
4. Parties heard. Record perused.
5. The documents relied upon by the learned Courts below reveal that while convicting the petitioner, the learned Courts have relied upon the orders of the High Court Ex.PB whereby this Court vide order dated 25.11.2004 on the report of bailiff, found that Allah Ditta the detenue kept in police lock up by Sher Muhammad ASI (petitioner) without making any entry in his official record.
The learned Courts below while relying upon these documents have concluded that the petitioner is guilty of the charge but have ignored the documents produced by the petitioner in his defence authenticity of which documents remained unchallenged on record. One of those documents is Ex.DG i.e, the certified copy of rapat dated 24.11.2004 issued by the Mohair of the Police Station showing that on the said date, Sher Muhammad ASI had arrested Allah Ditta son of Yaqub in ease FIR No, 122/2004, registered under Section 302, PPC at the same police station. This document has not been negated by the prosecution through any evidence which is admittedly official record of the police station. Same is the case with Ex.DH i.e, another rapt recorded by Farman Ali SI. These two documents are from the official record and enjoy presumption of truth. According to these rapats, it is apparent that on 24.11.2004, Sher Muhammad ASI had arrested Allah Ditta and brought him to the Police Station at about 09:00 a.m. As he was a nominated accused of the FIR involving capital sentence. These documents are sufficient to say that the prosecution has not proved through other 'cogent and convincing evidence than Ex.PB that Allah Ditta was kept in illegal confinement in the police station. Similarly, the statement of Medical Officer (PW-6) shows that duration of the injuries was one to two weeks and two to four weeks. As per document Ex.DG, the detenue was arrested and brought to the Police Station at 09:00 a.m. On 24.11.2004 so this fact does not corroborate and support the medical report. There is every likelihood that some weeks ago, the detenu might had suffered some injuries which had attributed to the petitioner. This medical evidence does not lend any support to the prosecution so the learned Courts below have erroneously relied upon the same. The complainant is not able to point out any malice on the part of the petitioner for keeping the alleged detenue in illegal custody and torturing him. In this manner, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the petitioner beyond any shadow of doubt, thus, the instant petition warrants acceptance. Even otherwise since 2004 to 2016, the petitioner had suffered the agony of trial and suffered incarceration which is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence recorded, by the learned Courts below against the petitioner is set-aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charge. He is present on bail whose bail bonds are cancelled and the surety is relieved from his liability.