MUHAMMAD NASIM, J.-- The controversy involved in the- matter in hand is that a case was registered against the accused-respondents on 28.10.2009, in the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 337, 427 and 452, A.P.C., at Police Station Dadyal. The allegation levelled against them was that they along with some unknown persons were demolishing the house of the complainant and when he asked them to stop this act, they started beating the complainant and his wife and inflicted them the severe injuries. The police after usual investigation presented the challan against the accused-respondents. in Tehsil Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Dadyal. The trial Court after necessary proceedings acquitted the accused of the charge and appeal before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the (High Court High Court) also failed through impugned judgment dated 26.09.2022.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant in the written arguments has taken the stance that the, judgments of the Courts below are against law and the facts of the case. The prosecution by producing the cogent evidence proved the case, buy the Courts below totally failed to appreciate the same in a legal manner. It has further been stated in the written arguments that in the cross- examination the defense side has admitted the prosecution story as correct but despite that the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge and the learned High Court also failed to rectify the illegality committed by the trial Court. The learned counsel has taken the plea that solid evidence in shape of recovery, medical and oral are available on record which fully support the prosecution story; hence, the accused are liable to be convicted.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Imtiaz Hussain Raja, Advocate, the learned counsel for the accused- respondents in the written arguments has taken the stance that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the respondents beyond reasonable ruble doubt, therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted them of the charge and the learned High Court has committed no illegality while concurring with the findings recorded' by the trial Courts. He has pointed out a number of flaws in the prosecution story while taking the stance that a single doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused of the charge, whereas, the instant case is full of doubt, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned AG supported the version of the appellant.
5. In the light of the points raised in the written arguments we have examined the record made available along with the impugned judgment. The instant appeal has been filed against an acquittal order and it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused, who has been acquitted of the charge is credited with two advantages, one; the innocence available to him at the pre-trial stage and the other which is earned by him on the basis of the acquittal order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction and acquittal order can only be interfered with when the same is found perverse, arbitrary, whimsical, reasonable artificial, ridiculous shocking in nature, based on misreading of material evidence, highly conjectural or based on surmises unwarranted under law. There is plethora of judgments on the point, however, for instance reference may be made to a case reported as Asia Bibi and S others v. Ghazanfar Ali and 3 others 2005 PCr.LJ 415 wherein it has been held as under: "The acquittal carries double presumption of innocence. One is initial that till found guilty accused persons are innocent and second is that Court of law having jurisdiction records order of acquittal.
In such circumstances this Court would interfere only if it is proved from the record that the order of acquittal is perverse and the reasons in support of the same are artificial and ridiculous"
Similarly in a case reported as Waseem Hussain and 2 others v. Muhammad Rafique and another [2017 SCR 428], it has been held that: "The instant appeal has not been filed against the conviction rather the same has been filed against acquittal order and it is settled principle of law that an accused, when acquitted of the charge, enjoys double presumption of innocence and once an acquittal has been made, the same can only be set aside if the Court comes to the conclusion that the order is capricious, fanciful, perverse; arbitrary and against the settled norms of justice."
In the instant case the allegation levelled against the accused-respondents is that they launched an attack and demolished the house of the complainant and also inflicted injuries to the complainant and his wife. The record show that not a single independent witness from the vicinity has been produced to verify the fact, moreover, injury form is not available on record and even the statement of the Doctor, who examined the injured is also missing. The record further speaks that the alleged incident took place at midnight whereas, the complainant lodged the report on the next day at 2:00 p.m., and no explanation for such a long delay in lodging the FIR has been brought on record. Even from the record it appears that there are a number of contradictions between the statements of the complainant and his wife. The prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is settled principle of law that a single doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused of the charge, whereas, in the case in hand not a single part of the prosecution story is proved beyond the doubts. Thus, in such state of affairs, in our view the trial Court was justified to acquit the accused of the charge and the learned High Court has Committed no illegality while maintaining the judgment passed by the trial Court. We do not find any perversity, arbitrariness or any misreading 'of material evidence by the Courts below, hence, the acquittal order cannot be interfered with.
Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.