MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent stood trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Diamer, who after full fledge trial, found him not guilty" and acquitted him from the charges by extending him benefit of doubts, vide judgment/order dated 25-04-2019.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgment/ order of learned trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel further submitted that the respondent is a nominated accused in the FIR, whose presence at the place of occurrence is admitted by the defence and no earthly reasons have been shown or advanced by the defence for false implication of the respondent in the instant case. PW-1 Mohabat Khan have categorically charged the respondent for commanding his co-accused to open fire on the deceased. The learned counsel for the complainant/ appellant submitted that it was a case of common intention and provisions of section 34, P.P.C. are fully attracted in the case, which have been ignored by the learned trial Court and ignorance of law has resulted into grave mis- carriage of justice. Lastly that the appeal be admitted for regular hearing and the respondent be noticed to contest the appeal.
3. We heard the learned counsel for the complainant/appellant at a considerable length and perused the whole record of the case. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the complainant/ appellant to lay hand on any piece of incriminating evidence available on the record against the respondent. As a last resort the learned counsel for the complainant/ appellant referred to the statement of PW-1, Muhabat Khan, who deposed in examination in chief that: "In the meanwhile Anwarullah directed Yasirullah to fire at the deceased on the said direction by the accused Anwarullah the said Yasirullah opened two fire shots on my deceased son from behind".
4. The above PW was confronted to his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., where it was not so recorded. It was a conscious and deliberate improvement on the part of the complainant, which was rightly ignored by the learned trial Court.
5. Appeals against acquittal are widely different from the appeal against conviction. Very strong and convincing grounds are required to upset an acquittal, which has been recorded by the trial Court after a full fledge trial as the presumption of initial innocence is multiplied after earning acquittal from the trial Court. We see no infirmity in the judgment/order dated 25-04-2019 passed, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Chilas and we maintain the same.
6. Appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed in limine.