MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The instant criminal appeal bearing No.36/2016 has been presented by Muhammad Shaffi, complainant against the judgment of acquittal rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate Nagar.
2. The brief facts of the case as narrated in FIR No.17/10 dated 15-09-2010 are that on the day of occurrence, the respondent/accused trespassed the land owned by the complainant and also damaged the structure, which was being erected for construction of school and extended threats of dire consequences to the complainant. Accordingly complainant lodged the above FIR against the respondent/ accused and set the law in motion. The Challan of the case was put in the trial Court and the charge was framed on 14-11-2011 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and the PWs. were summoned for recording their statements. After close of prosecution evidence the accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. on 13-09-2011. After hearing the parties the learned trial Court announced the judgment of acquittal. The complainant being aggrieved of the said judgment has come to this Court for setting aside the same.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that it was a day light occurrence and the FIR was lodged promptly without loss of time and the respondents were directly charged in the FIR for trespass and causing damage to the boundaries and foundation of the under construction school were demolished. Per learned counsel solid and concrete evidence was adduced in the trial Court, which fully implicates the accused/respondents and the learned trial Court acquitted the accused/ respondent not on merits but on humanitarian grounds, which is against the concept of dispensation of criminal justice. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court after a hectic labour tried to find innocence of accused/ respondent with the help of a microscope, which is not the intention of law, and there had been complete mis-recording and non-recording of evidence on the part of learned trial Court and finally prays that judgment of acquittal be set aside and the respondent/accused be convicted in accordance with law. The learned counsel relied as PLD 1985 SC 11 and PLD 1977 SC 529 in support of his contention.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/accused controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for complainant and submitted that prosecution case is full of doubts and there are material contradictions in the statements of all most all P. Ws, which cannot be reconciled. The learned counsel further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses made dishonest and material improvements, which were found deliberate and intentional by the trial Court. Investigating Officer of the case examined as PW-6 in the trial Court stated that no damage was done to the bathroom and only some stones were found laying on the place of occurrence, which falsifies the story of complainant narrated in FIR. Per learned counsel the star witness of the occurrence P.W Sadaqat Hussain and Iftikhar Ali did not utter a single word regarding sustaining injuries by the complainant. Likewise P.W- 5 Muhammad Ali has demolished the prosecution as he stated that he saw that accused/respondent Aminullah and Shahid Ullah assaulted on the complaint but he is not certain how the complainant received injuries and the medical certificate also negates the version of complainant, as it does not contain the time of treatment, and the same has also not been countersigned by the Medical Superintend of DHQ hospital Nagar. Lastly the learned counsel prays that the judgment of acquittal has been passed after proper appreciation of evidence and the same be maintained. The learned counsel invited attention of the Court towards application of complainant on the basis of which FIR Ex. P.W 6/A was lodged, which contain the date of 15-06-2010, whereas FIR has been lodged on 15-09-2010, which is fatal blow to the prosecution. The learned counsel relived on PLD 1996 Peshawar 43, PLD 1996 SC 11 and 2002 SCMR 713.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and have also gone through the file. From the scrutiny of evidence, it is established that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and their statements are not only at variance but also mutually destructive.
The prosecution witness in order to bring their case in line with the prosecution story tried to make improvements, which have shattered their veracity. Once the Courts find that some witnesses have made deliberate and dishonest improvement, then the evidence of such witnesses is not relied, till there exits some exceptional reasons to deviate from the above well settled proposition of law.
During scrutiny of evidence some inherent doubts where noted, which have rightly been resolved in favour of accused/ respondent.
6. In criminal cases, it is not necessary that there must be many circumstances to create doubt, if a single circumstance is available, which creates doubt and it goes to the very root of the case, it would be sufficient to extend benefit of doubt to the accused, as the accused is always presumed innocent till proven guilty by a Court of competent jurisdiction, after full fledge trial. The trial Court in the instant case acquitted the accused/respondent after proper appreciation of available evidence. More over the findings of trial Court are always given due weight, until and unless, there is gross mis-reading or non-reading of evidence on the part of trial Court. The learned counsel for appellant/complainant was confronted to point out any such piece of evidence, which may persuade me to upset the finding of facts and law arrived at by the trial Court.
7. The prosecution is bound to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and the concession cannot be granted to the prosecution witnesses to believe them, concession if any is sole right of accused, which are to be extended to him as a matter of right and not as matter of grace or concession.
8. The upshot of above discussion is that the appeal being meritless is dismissed A accordingly.