1. MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The respondents were booked for the offence under sections 337-A, 337/147/324, P.P.C. vide FIR No. 22/08 dated 20-06-2008 registered at Police Station Astore.
2. After completion of investigation the local Police submitted final Police report under section 173, Cr.P.C. to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate submitted the case to the learned Sessions Judge Astore, under section 190(1), Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case. On 14-11-2008, when the case was fixed for framing of charge, the learned Sessions Judge, as evident from order dated 14-11-2008, returned the case to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Section 30, Cr.P.C. for trial, where trial of the case started.
2. 3.In order to prove the case prosecution examined 10 PWs and closed its case on 09-08-2014. The statements of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded on 19-02-2016. The accused did not opt to get their statements recorded under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court announced verdict of acquittal on 10-04-2016, which is now impugned before this Court.
3. 4.The complainant being dis-satisfied from the said verdict, has approached this Court, mainly on the ground that there was over whelming evidence available on the file to connect the respondent/accused with the alleged crime but the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its true prospective, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the appellant referred the statements of PW-1 Inayat son of Sadaqat, statement of injured PW Aamil Ghalib, Statements of complainant Mushraf Ali and the statement of PW-9 Dr. Zahid Hussain and stated that these statements are in line with . the prosecution story and the acquittal was not warranted under such circumstances. The learned counsel for complainant submitted that all the respondents came at the place of occurrence in pursuance of common concert and were united in common intention. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the order of acquittal being the result of mis-recording of evidence be set aside and the respondents may be convicted under relevant provisions of law.
4. 5.On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that there are material contradictions is the statement of all the PWs and a false story has been tailored after deliberation and consultation. Per learned counsel the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents after taking in to account all the facts and circumstances of the case which is a well reasoned judgment, which be maintained in the interest of justice, as there is different criteria, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, and an appeal against conviction.
5. 6.Heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the record of the case, with their able assistance. It is a daylight occurrence and the respondents are directly charged in the FIR. PW Aamil Ghalib received knife injuries, while he was caught hold by accused Sher Ghazi and Zahid.
6. The injured was referred to DHQ Hospital Astore, where he was examined by PW-9 Dr. Zahid Hussain. Injury sheet of PW Aamil Ghalib has been verified by the concerned medical officer and the same has been exhibited as PW-9/A. The injured charged respondent/accused Sharafat Hussain for inflicting knife blow and as stated by PW-8 SIP Abdul Rehman the knife used in commission of crime was recovered from the possession of the accused Sharafat Hussain vide exhibit PW-8/B. The blood stained shirt of injured was also taken into possession vide exhibit PW- 7/A.
7. 7.The learned trial Court acquitted all the respondents vide judgment dated 10-04-2015. A perusal of the judgment shows that it is a half page judgment, without discussing any material evidence and even the arguments of the parties. Such a lethargic attitude of the learned trial Court is unbecoming of judicial officer and also against the mandate of section 367(2), Cr.P.C. The learned trial Judge while writing a judgment, should bear in mind that writing of judgment is not an empty formality but scared duty of the judge to justify the conclusions with reasons. Section 367, Cr.P.C. is re-produced as below:-- "367 Language of judgment: Contents of judgment.
8. 1.<i>Every such judgment shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, be written by the presiding officer of the Court from the dictation of such presiding officer in the language of the Court, or in English; and should contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decisions; and shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open Court at the time of pronouncing it and where it is not written by the police officer with his own hand, every page of such judgment shall be signed by him.
9. 2.It shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Pakistan Penal Code or other law under which the accused is convicted, and punishment to which he is sentenced. "
10. While writing judgments the judge was under moral and legal obligation to take in the account all possible situations and ponder over all the possibilities and probabilities, keeping in mind the basic principle of dispensation of justice that in criminal cases the responsibilities and basic duty lies on the shoulder of prosecution to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt but at the same time, when there are more than one accused or the Court is of the opinion that numbers of accused have been exaggerated, the Court has to sift the grain from the chaff which requires application of judicial mind and is also a laborious task. The trial judge in the case in hand thought it better to acquit the respondents without assigning any justifiable reasons just to get rid of case. The learned trial judge must know that every order passed under the provisions of any Judicial or Quasi Judicial capacity must contain reasons. The judge should be objective and not subjective. It could safely be said that if there is no discussion on any finding and the order has been passed in a mechanical manner, it would not be a proper order. The trial judges must know that their orders are appealable and reviseable and their discussion of available material which is a necessary requirement of law may facilitate the Appellate Court to reach to a definite conclusion, that whether there is any misreading or non-reading on the part of trial Court. A general trend has recently been developed that the cases are disposed off by short orders instead of following the provisions of section 367, Cr.P.C., which are mandatory in nature. The mandate of section 367, Cr.P.C. was to provide substantial grounds for safe administration of justice and the only object was that both the parties as well as the appellate Court must know that the trial Court has applied its judicial mind, while dealing with the case.
8. Now taking the merits of the case in hand, the respondents are directly charged in the FIR and P.W Aamil Ghalib received injuries on his person. Knife and dandas have been recovered from their possession vide recovery memo exhibit PW-8/D.
11. 9.A perusal of file revealed that Sher Ahmed the father of respondent No.1 Sher Ghazi and Sharafat Hussain on 22-06-2008 submitted an application for registration of a counter case against the complainant party about the same occurrence. The application is available at page 15 of the file of trial Court, which has submitted to SP and the same application submitted to SHO is on page 16 of the file, wherein the allegation of aggression and infliction of injuries are attributed to the complainant party, but could find whether any counter case was registered against the complainant or not, nor both the learned counsel of the parties were in a position to assist the Court on this crucial issue. I found the injury sheets of respondent No.1 Sher Ghazi, Respondent No.2 Sharafat Hussain and respondent No.5 Zarmas Khan, available on the file of trial Court.
12. 10.The possibility cannot be ruled out that the respondent might have acted in self defense, where they also received injuries and were referred to DHQ Hospital Astore on the day of occurrence and were given medical treatment by the medical officer of the said Hospital. The respondents were running from pillar to post for registration of FIR. Why FIR was not registered is a mysterious question. Now almost all it is a settled proposition of law that whenever the complainant party suppress the injuries sustained by the other side in their own FIR, the presumption would be that the complainant party was aggressor. A perusal of FIR shows that the complainant suppressed their own role and tried to twist the facts and they will have to bear the consequences of their own deeds.
13. 11.In view of above the acquittal of the respondents is maintained despite the perversity of judgment handed down by the trial Court.
12. The result of above discussion is that the appeal is dismissed.