ALI BAIG, J.---This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment/order dated 07-07-2018 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Diamer whereby the learned trial court has acquitted the present respondent No,1/ accused.
2. Briefly allegations against the present respondent No,1/accused as disclosed in the FIR are that on 28-9-2016 at 1530 hours the complainant namely Baskia, her deceased husband Abdul Ghaffar and her son Javed were going to Sari from their house situated at Toser Thore for getting treatment as she was ill. When they crossed Manjal RCC bridge and in the meanwhile a white NCP Car came from back side and stopped there. The accused namely Shah Farman son of Gusher, Muhammad Shakhi and Pharo Khan sons of Khan Bahadur residents of Gaber Thore disembarked from the vehicle and started indiscriminate firing upon her husband namely Abdul Ghaffar which hit her husband, he fell down on the ground and expired instantly. The complainant has further alleged in the FIR that the occurrence was taken place at the behest and abetment of the present respondent No,1/accused. Motive behind the occurrence is stated to be old enmity between the parties.
3. After registration of criminal case against the respondent No,1/accused and his co-accused under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. vide FIR No,23/2016 at Police Station Thore by Sub-Inspector Faqir Muhammad SHO Police Station Thore, he started investigation in this case. He arrested the respondent No,1/accused. After completion of usual investigation the present respondent No,1/accused was committed to judicial custody/judicial lock-up at Chilas, whereas his three above named co-accused had absconded, therefore, they could not be arrested. The prosecution submitted complete challan to the extent of present respondent No,1/ accused and incomplete challan against the absconding accused under section 512, Cr.P.C. in the trial court on 24-02-2017.
Formal charge against the present respondent No,1/accused was framed on 28-03-2017, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and opted to contest the case. After framing of charge against the present respondent No,1/ accused P.Ws. were summoned by the learned trial court.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced/examined as many as six witnesses out of total 8 witnesses cited in column No,6 of the challan and the learned DPP closed his side/prosecution evidence. The learned trial court recorded statement of accused/respondent No,1 under section 342, Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied the charge of abetment and professed his innocence stating that the witnesses being close relatives of the deceased have falsely implicated him in this case. However, neither the respondent No,1/accused opted to record his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any witness in his defence. The learned trial court after hearing final arguments on behalf of the respondent No,1/accused, state and complainant has acquitted the respondent No,1/accused vide the impugned judgment dated 07-07-2018, hence this appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant contended that the impugned judgment dated 07-07-2108 passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case; as such the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the respondent No,1/accused has instigated and abetted the principal/ absconding accused to commit murder of the deceased and the complainant and another PW namely Naseer son of Sangli have deposed against the present accused/present respondent No,1 in their statements recorded before the learned trial court but the learned trial court has wrongly acquitted the accused/respondent No,1, therefore, by accepting this appeal, the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court may be set aside.
6. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record with due care and caution. Admittedly the accused/respondent No,1 was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence and he was involved in this case on the presumption that he has abetted and instigated the principal accused to commit murder of the deceased Abdul Ghaffar. It is a common Phenomenon/practice in District Diamer if one person commits an offence; his whole family/members are involved in the said crime/offence by the complainant party. No independent and impartial witnesses have deposed against the present respondent No, 1/accused that the present respondent No,1/accused has abetted or instigated his co-accused to commit murder of the deceased. Only widow of deceased and PW-4 namely Naseer who is son in law of the deceased Abdul Ghaffar, have deposed in their statement recorded in the trial court on 15-03-2018, against the respondent No,1/accused. PW namely Naseer has stated that one or two days prior to the occurrence, he and PW Javed had gone to Gaber, where the accused namely Gosher was commanding/ instructing his sons and nephews to commit murder of Abdul Ghaffar. The accused were roaming behind the victim for the last 1/2 days. But it is astonishing to observe that if the accused/respondent No,1 had directed the principal accused to commit murder of the deceased prior to the occurrence, then why the complainant party has not lodged any complaint against the respondent No,1 /accused before the police, prior to the occurrence. Moreover, both the above named P Ws are closely related to the deceased and there is old enmity between the complainant party and the respondent No,1/accused namely Gosher. As such the above named both the witnesses are interested hostile and inimical to the respondent No,1, therefore, conviction cannot be based on the statements of above named two interested witnesses as their evidence requires corroboration which is lacking in this case.
7. After considering the material available on the record I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the respondent No, 1/accused beyond any reasonable doubt. As such the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent No,1/accused vide the impugned judgment. Hence, I am not inclined to admit this criminal appeal as it would be futile exercise and abuse of process of law and wastage of precious time of court as well as the parties.
8. For what has been discussed above, I do find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. File.