NAZEER AHMED LANGOVE, J.---Instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 04th August 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhal Magsi at Gandhawa, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under section 78(3)(D) read with sections 82 and 94 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 and sections 199, 200 and 471, P.P.C.
2. Precise facts relevant for disposal or instant appeal are that the Regional Election Commissioner (RFC), Naseerabad at Dera Murad Jamali filed a direct complaint under the above mentioned Sections against respondent in the court of Sessions Judge. Naseerabad at Dera Murad Jamali.
Later on the complaint was transferred to the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhal Magsi at Ghandawa. It was alleged in the complaint that respondent filed his nomination papers for contesting General Election, 2013 from the constituency PB-23 and declared as successful candidate. It was further alleged that the Educational Degrees annexed with his nomination papers were found forged hence the complaint. On filing complaint inquiry under section 200, Cr.P.C. was conducted by Judicial Magistrate Jhal Magsi wherein it was found that the degree obtained by Nawabzada Tariq Magsi (respondent) was fake and bogus.
3. On the basis of above report on 26.05.2015 charge was framed against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Complainant was examined as CW-1 who produced the complaint as Ex.P/C-1-A. It seems from the record that on 21.04.2015 the respondent moved an application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal. The learned trial court after hearing the parties vide order dated 04.08.2015 accepted the application and acquitted the appellant of the charge.
5(sic.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is/was overwhelming evidence connecting the private respondent with the commission of offence but the learned trial court illegally acquitted him of the charge. Learned counsel stressed that the trial court failed to take into consideration that the respondent obtained two bogus F.A Certificates from different Educational Boards. His B.A Degree was obtained on the basis of one of the certificates but this aspect of the case escaped notice of the trial court. CW-1 corroborated the prosecution version whereas the defence failed to create any dent in his statement but even then the trial court illegally, unlawfully and without any justifiable reason acquitted the respondent of the charge. It was maintained that while acquitting the respondent the trial court failed to record any cogent reason.
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent strenuously opposed the appeal and argued that the complainant failed to prove guilt of the respondent to the hilt, as such the trial court had no option but to acquit the private respondent of the charge. It was maintained that the complainant was under legal obligation to prove the factum of genuineness or otherwise of the degree by producing the witnesses or representative of the University which had allegedly issued the decree but the complainant failed to produce a single witness rather the complainant himself when appeared before the trial court only got exhibited the complaint. Learned counsel emphatically argued that under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order a procedure has been provided for proving genuineness or otherwise of the documents but the complainant without resorting to the legal course, wants that only on the basis of allegation leveled by him the respondent may be convicted which is neither aim nor object, of the law. The trial court after proper appraisal of material available on record and attending all the legal as well as factual aspects of the case passed a very exhaustive and well reasoned judgment. No illegality or irregularity, misreading and non-reading could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the judgment impugned warranting interference by this court.
6. We have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for parties and perused the record of case with their assistance. It may be noted that in the instant case the complainant filed complaint against the respondent alleging therein that respondent filed his nomination papers for contesting General Election, 2013 from the constituency PB-32 and was declared a successful candidate. It was further alleged that the Educational Degrees annexed with his nomination papers were found forged. It may further be observed that the complainant failed to specifically mentioned that which degree (Matric, F.A, and B.A) was forged. Even in the memo of appeal in ground 'C' the complainant/respondent states "the respondent/accused has obtained two bogus F.A. Certificates of two separate boards and the respondent had obtained his B.A. Decree through the above said F.A Certificate" it means that even the complainant himself is not sure that which of the degree of respondent is fake and bogus. We are in respectful agreement with the learned counsel for respondent that the complainant was under legal obligation to prove the factum of genuineness or otherwise of the degrees by producing the witnesses or representative of the College/University which had allegedly issued the decree but the complainant failed to produce a single witness from any college/University who could have testified the genuineness or otherwise of the degree but the complainant even when himself appeared before the trial court only got exhibited the complaint. We are afraid that the complainant who is Regional Election Commissioner how wants conviction and sentence of the respondent without legally and properly proving the charge against him. It may not be irrelevant that Qanun-eShahadat Order provides a procedure provided for proving genuineness or otherwise of the documents but the complainant without resorting to the legal course, wants that only on the basis of allegation leveled by him the respondent may be convicted which is neither aim nor object of the law. Under these circumstances we have no hesitation is our mind to hold that the complainant failed to prove guilt of the respondent to the hilt, as such the trial court had no option but to acquit the private respondent of the charge. The trial court after proper appraisal of material available on record and attending all the legal as well as factual aspects of the case passed a very exhaustive and well reasoned judgment. No illegality or irregularity, misreading and non-reading could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the judgment impugned warranting interference by this court.
Needless to mention here that the defence is not required to create a series of dents and doubts in prosecution case but for giving the benefit of doubt if a single doubt is created even then the defence is entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right. Reliance can be placed on the judgment titled as Muhammad Akram v. The State reported in 2009 SCMR 230.
9. It may be observed that after gaining acquittal a double presumption of innocence was earned by the private respondent and the superior courts have always been reluctant to set aside findings of acquittal unless it is proved that the findings arrived at by the trial court while acquitting the accused are based on misreading, non-reading of evidence or the acquittal is perverse, shocking, artificial and ridiculous. In the instant case no illegality, irregularity, misreading, non-reading of evidence or that the findings arrived at by the trial court are perverse, shocking, artificial and ridiculous could be pointed out. Conversely perusal of record as well as the impugned judgment reveals that the learned trial court after proper appraisal of evidence and attending all the legal as well as factual aspects of the case passed a well reasoned judgment which is not open to any exception. Even on reappraisal of evidence we could not form a contrary view to that of the trial court. Reliance can be placed on the judgment titled as Hap Paio Khan v. Sher Biaz and others reported in 2009 SCMR page 803. Relevant observations there from are reproduced herein below:- "It needs no reiteration that when an accused person is acquitted from the charge by a Court of competent Jurisdiction then, double presumption of innocence is attached to its order, with which the superior Courts do not interfere unless the impugned order is arbitrary, capricious. fanciful and against the record".
10. It may further be added that the standards of assessing evidence in appeal against Acquittal and that of appeal against conviction are quite different. Appraisal of evidence, in appeal against conviction is done strictly and in appeal against acquittal such rigid method of appraisal is not be applied as there is already finding of acquittal given by the trial court after proper analysis of evidence on record.
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant failed to bring home the charge against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt, thus the trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent of the charge. No case for interference in the impugned judgment is made out, therefore, the appeal being meritless is dismissed.