KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---The captioned appeal is directed agains t the judgment dated 28.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kamber , in Sessions Case No.376 of 2011 re-Khadim Ali Gopang v. Hakim Ali Gadehi , for offences under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, whereby respondent No.1, namely , Hakim Ali son of Muhammad Ramzan Gadehi has been acquitted of the charge.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Khadim Ali Gopang filed a complaint under the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against respondent Hakim All Gadehi, alleging that on 30.04.2010, the respondent/ accused Hakim Ali along with 10 unknown persons dispossessed the appellant/complainant illegally on gunpoint from his agricultural land viz. 06 ghuntas from Survey No.98 of Deh Chajjra and 19 ghuntas from Survey No.376 of Deh Nangar Hakro, Taluka Kamber , District Kamber-Shandadkot. After necessary formalities the complaint was registered and brought on regular file vide order dated 22.10.201 1.
3. A formal charge was framed against the accused ('the respondent'), to which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried.
4. At the trial, complainant Khadim Ali examined himself at Ex.3, he produced original documents and certified true copies of documents at Exs.3-A to 3-G respectively; witnesses Mehboob Ali and Ghulam Rasool were examined at Exs.5 and 6 respectively . After closure of complainant's evidence, statement of respondent/accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he denied the allegations, pleaded innocence and claimed to have been falsely implicated.
5. At the conclusion of trial and after hearing the parties' Counsel, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge vide impugned judgment dated 28.03.2017.
6. Having felt aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/complainant Khadim Ali Gopang has preferred the present appeal.
7. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence brought on record; that the complainant by examining himself and his witnesses and by producing documentary evidence proved his case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt; and, that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal. The learned Counsel prays that the appeal may be allowed and the respondent may be convicted and possession of the subject land may be directed to be handed over to the appellant.
8. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned Additional Prosecutor General supporting the impugned judgment, have unanimously contended that the learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence in its true perspective has rightly acquitted the respondents.
9. The principles for appreciation of evidence in appeals against the acquittal are now well settled. In the case of Yar Muhammad and 3 others v . The State (1992 SCMR 96 ), the Hon'be apex Court of Pakistan has observed Milt:- "Unless the judgment of trial Court is perverse, completely illegal and on perusal of evidence no other decision can be given except that the accused is guilty or there has been complete misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice, High Court will not exercise jurisdiction under section 417 Cr.P.C." It was further held that "in exercising this jurisdiction, High Court is always slow unless it feels that gross injustice has been done in the administration of criminal justice".
In the case of State/Government of Sindh through Advocate General, Sindh, Karachi v. Sobharo (1993 SCMR 585), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that: "while evaluating the evidence, difference is to be maintained in appeal from conviction and acquittal appeal and in the latter case interference is to be made only when there is gross misreading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice."
10. From a perusal of the record it would be seen that complainant claimed to have purchased 06 ghuntas out of 1- 35 acres from Survey No.98 of Deh Chhajra A and 19 ghuntas out of 4-35 acres from Survey No.376 of Deh Nangar Hakro, from different persons on different dates, as is reflected from paragraph-2 of the complaint filed as Annexure-B, available at pages 39 - 48, but descriptions and boundaries of the said meager areas from the aforesaid survey numbers allegedly purchased by the appellant are no where mentioned either in the complaint or even in the evidence led by the prosecution and thus the identity of the subject land cannot be made; the complainant claimed to have cultivated the subject land with wheat crop after its purchase through his farmer Mehboob Ali; complainant Khadim Ali has deposed that on the day of incident he, his hari Mahboob Ali and witness Ghulam Rasool were present when respondent Hakim Ali along with 10 unidentified armed persons had come over the land and had taken away the wheat crop and dispossessed him from the land, while PW Mahboob Ali has stated that Hakim Ali along with 10 unidentified persons came over the land and said to the complainant that his khatalentry had been cancelled by the EDO Revenue and he forcibly took away wheat produce, but he did not utter a single word about dispossession of the complainant from the subject land and even he had not shown the presence of PW Ghulam Rasool; PW Ghulam Rasool has also stated that respondent Hakim Ali had taken away the wheat crop in tractor , but he has also not stated a single word about dispossession of the complainant from the subject land; the complainant has also made certain dishonest improvements and material admissions adverse to his case, such as, "It is correct that there is no mention of cultivation of paddy crop of said land and picking produce of paddy crop of 37 mounds in my complaint.
The total area of survey number 376 is 4-35 acres. I have claimed 19 Ghuntas from the said survey number , rest of 2-13 acres belongs to Imtiaz Mughal and two acres belong to accused. The total area of survey number 98 is about 1-35 acres. I have a claim of six ghuntas from survey No.98. Accused Hakim Ali is the owner of rest of 1-29 acres. Survey No.98 is completely uncultivated land. Survey No.376 is totally cultivated land; moreover , the complainant has not produced any document to show that he ever remained in possession of his share in the aforesaid survey numbers; respondent Hakim Ali also claimed himself to be the co- sharer in the disputed property bearing Survey Nos.376 and 98, situated in Deh Chhajra and Nangar Hakro respectively of Taluka Kamber; the entry No.472 of Record of Rights of Deh Nangar Hakro and entry No.862 of revenue record of Deh Chhajra, Taluka Kamber were cancelled by the EDO Revenue Kamber-Shandadkot at Kamber vide order dated 18.03.2010, which was called in question before this Court in C. P. No.D-833 of 2010 and by order dated 16.10.2010 the aforesaid order of EDO Revenue dated 18.3.2010 was set aside and the application of respondent Hakim Ali, which was deemed to be pending before EDO Revenue, Kamber Shandadkot, was directed to be decided by giving full oppor tunity to the petitioner and others, but that application was not decided on merits, but the proceedings were stopped without going into the merits, as is reflected from order dated 17.03.201 1 passed by EDO Revenue, Kamber-Shandadkot at Kamber , a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-D/8, available at page-1 15.
11. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the view that the parties are disputing over the subject property and the respondent Hakim Ali claimed to be in possession of the disputed property prior to the alleged date of dispossession shown by the complainant, who has not substantiated his case as set out in his complaint by any evidence worth consideration and no case attracting the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 has been made out by the complainant and the matter is purely of civil nature, as the claim of the parties regarding ownership and possession over the dispu ted property can only be sifted by adducing evidence of the nature before the Court of plenary jurisdiction with consequential relief of possession in appropriate proceedings. I have seen the impugned judgment dated 28.03.2017, passed by the learned trial Court acquitting the respondent on failure of the complainant to prove his case against the respondent beyond a reasonable doubt. Patently the impugned acquittal judgment is apt to the facts and circumsta nces of the case, which suffering from no illegality or misreading or non- reading of the evidence does not call for any interference in criminal acquittal appeal under the provisions of section 417, Cr.P.C. In the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Raza and another (2008 SCMR 329), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:- "An accused is presumed to be innocent in law and if after regular trial he is acquitted he earns a double presumption of innocence and there is a heavy onus on the prosecution to rebut the said presumption. In view of the discrepant and inconsistent evidence led, the guilt of accused is not free from doubt, we are therefore, of the view that the prosecution has failed to discharge the onus and the finding of acquittal is neither arbitrary nor capricious to warrant interference. The petition having no merit is dismissed and leave is refused."
12. Accordingly , this criminal acquittal appeal having no substance is dismissed.