AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this acquittal appeal the appellant/complainant, namely , Aizaz Ali Shah has impugned the judgment dated 08.12.2017 passed by I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ghotki in Sessions case No.120/2016 arising out of crime No.22/2 016 under sections 324, 337F(iii) P.P.C. Police Station, A-Section Ghotki district, Ghotki, whereby the respondents Javed Ahmed alias Javed and Abdul Hameed were acquitted by extending benefit of doubt to them.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 23.01.2016 complainant Aizaz Ali got registered the FIR at Police Station, A-Section, Ghotki stating therein that Hassan Shah aged about 37 years is his elder brother and hot words were exchanged between his brother and Javed Solangi on the matter of amount on which Javed Solangi was annoyed upon him and express his views that they will see his brother . On 20.01.2016 complainant along with his brother Assadullah Shah were standing G.T. Road near degree College Ghotki and his brother Hassan Shah was coming lowards home on motorcycle from Scarp Colony when at about 12:00 noon his brother Hassan was reached nearby them, where on two motorcycles accused Javed son of Faiz,
2. Abdul Hameed son of Moula Bux by caste Solangi and two unidentified persons reached near behind him hurry manner and accused Abdul Hameed and Javed took out pistols from their folds of Shalwar and accused Abdul Hameed made straight fire upon his brother Hassan Shah with intention to murder which was not hit to him and accused Javed with intention of murder made straight fire of pistol which hit him and was fallen down along with his motorc ycles, thereafter all the accused persons fled away and complainant party saw their brother Hassan Shah who sustained one fife on the back side and become through and through from the abdomen front side and blood was oozing and was in injured condition and brought him, obtained letter for treatment and went to Taluka Hospital Ghotki wherefrom after first aid he was referred to Sukkur for better treatment where injured was examined and was under treatment. Complainant then lodged FIR.
After investigation the charge-sheet against accused/respondents was presented in trial Court.
3. In support of their case prosecution examined PW-1 Complainant Aijaz Ali Shah at Ex.05 who produced FIR at Ex.5-A. PW-2 Syed Hassan Ali Shah was examined at Ex.6, PW-3 Assadullah was examined Ex.09 who produced memo of injuries and place of incident at Ex.09/A & B. PW-4 Dr. Mir Hassan was examined at Ex.10 who produced medical certificates at Ex.10-A and 10-B. PW-5 AS1 Mehrban Ali was examined at Ex.11 and PW-6 ASI Mehmood Ali was examined at Ex.12-A who produced letter No.83 dated 20.01.2016 and copy of entry at Ex.12-A and 12-B.
Thereafter , learned ADPP closed the prosecution side at Ex.14, and then statements of accused were recorded under section 342 Cr .P.C.
4. Heard learned Counsel for appellant, learned DPG for the State, respondents and perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for appellant submits that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, non-speaking and contrary to the evidence brought on the record therefore, it is liable to be set-aside. He further submits that dispute is going on between complainant and respondents over landed property which is admitted. He further submits that complainant and his PWs have fully supported the case of prosecution and prosecution has fully established its case for conviction but learned trial Court did not give any weight and acquitted the respondents mere on presumption hence, same is liable to be set-aside and conviction may be awarded to the respondents.
6. Learned Counsel for respondent supported the impugned judgment. He contends that evidence of complainant and PWs is contradictory and there are huge discrepancies in their evidence. He submits that learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents. He prayed for dismissal of instant Cr1. Acquittal appeal.
7. Learned DPG for the State while supporting the impugned judgment submitted that there is un-explained delay of about 04 days in lodging the FIR. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondents to the hilt, as such the trial Court had no option but to acquit the respondents of the charge, therefore, he prayed that instant acquittal appeal may be dismissed.
8. I have carefully considered the material available on record and have gone through the relevant evidence.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by the respective parties and have scanned the material available on record. It is admitted that the alleged incident occurred on 20.01.2016 at 1200 hours but FIR was lodged on 23.01.2016 at 1300 hours after three days' delay of the incident but there is no explanation for such delay which alone is fatal to the prosecution case as it gives presumption to mediation, cons ultation and false implication of innocent persons. Insofar as the section 324, P.P.C. (Qatl-e-Amd) is concerned it was alleged that respondents/ accused came at the site of occurrence, inter alia, with fire arm weapon with the intent to commit murder however , one fire injury recived by PW Hassan Shah although he was at the mercy of the accused persons but they did not repeat the second fire-arm. The said act of the accused persons prima facie reflects that they had no intention to commit murder of injured which controverts the applicability of section 324 P.P.C. The injured has received injuries through and through but neither blood stained earth from the place of incident nor blood stained clothes nor empty from place of incident were collected by 1.0. nor injured produced any shirt before him. In this regard the relevant portion of judgment of the learned trial Court is being re-produced as under; "Dr. Mir Hassan who produced the provisional and final medical certificate at Ex.10- A and 10-B and opined that injured has received firearm injury on his person. The record shows that neither blood stained earth from the place of incident nor blood stained clothes nor any empty from place of incident nor the weapons used in the alleged offence recovered in this case hence, the entire case of prosecution has become doubtful. Moreover the alleged incident is alleged to have been committed on 20.01.2016 while the FIR is registered after about 03 days of incident. No plausible explanation is put forwarded by prosecution for lodging such. FIR with delay . This clearly suggests that FIR has been lodged with deliberation and consultation. The prosecution case appears to be highly doubtful and it is well settled that a single circumstance creating doubt about the case of prosecution always is extended to the accused".
The evidence furnished by prosecution is not inspiring confidence to connect the respondents in the alleged commission of of fence.
10. After considering the material availab le in the file I have come to the conclus ion that the impugned judgment dated 08.12.2017 passed by learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ghotki is based on proper appreciation of the evidence which is not fanciful. Needless to mention that when an accused person is acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction then double presumption of innocence is attached to its judgment, with which the superior Courts in numerous cases do not interfere unless the impugned judgment appears to be vague, perverse and arbitrary or against the record.
11. In the above circumstances, I am of the view that trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that reasonable doubt has been created in the prosecution case and its benefit has rightly been extended to the respondents, therefore, learned I-Additional Sessions Judge, Ghotki was fully justified for acquit ting the respondents hence, this Crl. Acquittal appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed.