Through this Criminal Appeal filed under Section 417 (2-A), Cr.P.C. the appellant has called into question the vires of judgment dated 14.10.2016 whereby learned Judicial Magistrate, Pir Mahal, acquitted Respondent No. 1 from case FIR No. 191/2013, offence under Section 39-A of Electricity Act, registered with Police Station, Aroti, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence available on the record in its true perspective and has acquitted the respondent on flimsy grounds. Adds that the respondent is named in the crime report with specifi c allegation that he was stealing electricity through direct wire. Adds that the PWs have fully implicated the respondent with the crime alleged. It is contended that the respondent was found guilty by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. It is next argued that there is ample material/evidence available on the record against the respondent to connect him with the commission of the alleged offence and as such the judgment impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
3. Preliminary arguments heard. Record available on file perused
4. There, is no denial to this fact that Respondent No 1 is named in the crime report with specific allegation, but at the same time this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that there is delay of five days in lodging the crime report for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution. In the judgment impugned, learned trial Court has observed that the wire recovered from the spot does not support the prosecution version as length of the same is not more than two feet while height of main line is 25-feet from the ground, hence it is not possible to get connected the same with main supply line. Furthermore, neither the electric motor allegedly working at the spot was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer nor any evidence is available on the record to suggest that the said electric motor was under the ownership of the respondent. Moreover , the prosecution witnesses are contradicting each other on salient features of the case. Learned trial Court while observing that the prosecution has badly failed to substantiate its version through leading cogent and confidence inspiring evidence has acquitted the respondent while extending him bene fit of doubt. Needless to mention that the accused is favourite child of law and after acquittal presumption of innocence becomes double in favour of the accused. Moreover , in a case of acquittal, the superior Courts only interfere to avoid grave miscarriage of justice and when judgment of acquittal is perverse, capricious or arbitrary but position in the case in hand is otherwise. Reliance in this ' regard is placed upon the dictum of law laid down in the case of Shahid Abbas Vs. Shahbaz and others (2009 SCMR 237).
Moreover learned counsel for the appella nt has failed to point out any illegality/legal inconformity or misreading/ non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment. The appeal in hand is devoid of any force. Resultantly , the same is dismissed .