Through this appeal u/S. 417(2-A), Cr.P.C., the appellant has assailed the vires of judgment dated 30.05.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessio ns Judge Taxila, through which he acquitted Respondent No.1 in case F.I.R. No. 399 dated 29.09.2016, of fence u/S. 365-B, 302, 34, P .P.C., registered at Police Station W ah Cantt.
2. The short-lived facts of the prosecution case as narrated by the appellant, Faraz Ahmed Qureshi, complainant/PW5 through complaint Ex.PK, are that he is resident of Shadman Town near 26- Area Wah Cantt. On 20.08.2015, some unknown accused kidnapped his real sister Nasira Bibi aged about 23-years. He remained in search of his sister but in vain. On 26.09.2016, his uncle Asif Khan informed him that the accused Jahanzeb Khan, whose son was taking tuition of his sister , has buried a dead body of a woman secretly . On pursuant, it came into the knowledge that the above said buried lady was his sister , to whom the accused Jahanzeb Khan kidnapped, committed rape with her and murdered her . Hence the F .I.R.
3. After registration of F.I.R. the investigation was conducted and on completion of investigation report u/S. 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted and Respondent No. 1 was sent up to face trial. Learned trial Court after observing codal formalities, framed the charge against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in order , to prove the charge produced its evidence. After evaluating the evidence, learned trial Court acquitted Respondent No. 1. Hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned order is against the law and facts; that the prosecution proved its case through reliable evidence of Faraz Ahmed Qureshi, complainant (PW.5), Asif Khan (PW.6), Ghulam Murtaza (PW.7), Abdul Karim (PW.8), Muhammad Arif (PW.9), Shabbir Ahmed (PW.10), Mudassar Abbas, SI (PW.11), Mohi ud Din (PW.12) and Rafaqat All (PW.13) but the learned trial Court has misread the said evidence and illegally acquitted Respondent No. 1; that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, wherein, prosecution produced evidence in the shape of living of the deceased with the Respondent No. 1 before her death; that the prosecution prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence available on record.
5. Having heard arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and re-examination the record on file, we find that learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer to any piece of evidence which could persuade us to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court is against the weight of evidence available on record.
The judgment of the learned trial Court while acquitting the accused/respondent cannot be said to be perverse and reasons thereof are not fanciful, capricio us, speculative and artificial and in the absence of holding the order of acquittal as such, it cannot be interfered with. The learned trial Court has dealt with all the contentions as agitated before us in the judgment impugned.
6. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.08.2015, some unknown accused kidnapped Nasira Bibi, sister of the complainant and on 26.09.2016 his uncle Asif Khan informed him that Respondent No. 1, Jahanzeb Khan, whose son was taking tuition of his sister , has buried a dead body of a woman secretly . After inquiry , it came into knowledge of appellant that said buried lady was his sister to whom the Resp ondent No. 1, Jahanzeb Khan kidnapped, committed rape with her and murdered her. Admittedly it was an unseen occurrence and no direct evidence is available with the prosecutio n to prcve its case against the Respondent No. 1 rather same mainly hinges upon circumstantial evidences, therefore utmost care and caution is required to reach at just decision. The guiding factors for awarding sentence on the basis of circumstantial evidence are settled by the superior Courts.
The Court has always to be more cautious on awarding the sentence relying upon the circumstantial evidence. The presumption and conjecture, howsoever , strong they may be, the Court has to be vigilant about the same while discussing the matter involving such situation. Prosecution in such like cases is required to form such a continuous chain of circumstances, each of its link firmly connecting the accused with the alleged offence. In order to discharge the onus the prosecution produ ced evidence in the shape of oral as well as circumstantial evidence by producing the witnesses in whose presence the burial ceremony of the deceased was performed. Ghulam Murtaza (PW.7) performed the funeral prayer of Nasira Bibi (deceased), Abdul Karim (PW.8) upon asking of the Respondent No. 1 prepared kafan of the deceased, Muhammad Arif (PW.9) prepared the grave and Mohi-ud-Din (PW.12) participated in the funeral prayer of the deceased. In his statement, the complainant merely stated that on 20.08.2015 his sister Nasira Bibi was abducted and on 26.09.2016 his uncle Asif Khan informed him that the Respondent No. 1 had secretly buried a woman. It is very astonishing to note that the deceased was abducted on 20.08.2015 whereas uncle of the complainant Asif Khan (PW.6) informed about burial of a woman on 26.09.2016 after, more than one year and during this period the complainant remained mum regarding abduction of his sister and did not take any serious steps regarding recovery of his sister which is quite unnatural. Rather an application (Ex.DA) was put by the defence side upon the complainant wherein it was mentio ned by the complainant that his sister Nasira Bibi had left the house on 20.08.2015 but nothing was alleged regarding her abduction and it was mentioned that the deceased left the house by her own. There is yet another circumstance that the belongings of the deceased Nasira Bibi were taken into possession through memo Ex.PL from the house where she was residing in her last days. Besides her garments and golden ornaments, her credentials along with domicile certificate were also recovered from the said house. If the deceased had been kidnapped by the accused then how all her belongings i.e. golden ornaments and educational documents she was keeping with her and recovered from the said house which fact is also fatal to the prosecution case. Likewise, the house of the complainant (PW.5) is stated to be situated in Shadman Town 26-Area Wah Cantt. whereas the house of Respondent No. 1 is situated in the same vicinity just 4/5 streets away from the house of the complainant. Similarly , Shabbir Ahmed (PW.10) deposed that Shadman Town comprised of only one street while the house where the deceased was living prior to her death is also exists in the same vicinity . As far as the assertion of the prosecution that the Respondent. No. 1 buried Nasira bibi (deceased) secretly with some wrong name is concerned, it divulges from the record that the funeral prayers, was performed by Ghulam Murtaza (PW.7) while the grave was prepared by Muhammad Arif (PW.9) after permission from cantonment board. The funeral prayer (janaza), was offered openly in the graveyard and the deceased was buried in presence of many persons after permission from the Cantonment Board. While the stance of the Respondent No.' 1 was that he being member of a committee of the locality , which fact was admitted by all the prosecution witnesses, participated in the funeral ceremony . Hence from the above it is evident that nothing was done secretly . In these circumstances, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that if it is admitted that the deceased was kidnapped or murdered then there was no need to complete all these proceedings openly rather the culprit makes all the ef forts normally to conceal his of fence and destroy all the available evidence.
7. So far as the medical evidence is concerned, after exhumation of the dead body of Nasira Bibi (deceased), the) post mortem was )nducted by lady Doctor Shahida Bashir (PW.1) who did not sugg est any special symptoms which could led to the conclusion that the death of Nasira Bibi (deceased) was unnatural. Similarly , as per report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore (Ex.PG), no seminal material was detected, therefore, the medical evidence also did not support the version of the prosecution that the deceased was ever subjected to rape or her death was unnatural.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent due to the discrepancies stated above. The principles for setting aside acquittal are now well settled. The impugned judgment is neither perverse, illegal, ridiculous nor there was any misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice.
The C prosecution has failed to prove the case against Respondent No. 1. The case of the prosecution is fraught with doubts and respondent was not obliged to establish number of circumstances, creating a reasonable doubt in the prudent mind even a single circumstance is sufficient to extent the benefit of the same. Reliance can be placed on Muhammad Zaman vs. The State and Others (2014 SCMR 749). It is well settled law that every accused, after his acquittal, had earned a double presumption of innocence, for rebuttal of which heavy onus lay on the prosecution but it had failed to discharge the same. Finding of acquittal of accused recorded by the trial Court was neither arbitrary nor capricious to warrant interference. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Shafi vs. Muhammad Raza and another (2008 SCMR 329 ).
9. So in the given circumstances, when we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the acquittal order of the learned trial Court, the same cannot be disturbed. Seeking guidelines from the esteemed judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of reported as Jahangir v. Aminullah and others (2010 SCMR 491), we are of the opinion that the instant appeal lacks merit. Consequently , the same is dismissed.