1. Rashid Aziz Khan, J.- The facts leading to the filing of this appeal by State are that Rehmat Ali had got a case registered against the respondents for an offence under sections 325/452/342/148/149 PPC, with Police Station Narowal. The Magistrate Section 30, Narowal, vide his judgment dated 13.7.1987 gave the benefit of doubt to the respondents and acquitted them.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Court below has erred in law by acquitting the respondents. Submits that the case has been proved beyond any doubt from the evidence of the eyewitnesses, but no cogent reasons have been given for not relying upon them.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and have gone through the record with his assistance. The prosecution in support of its case produced seven witnesses in all. I have noticed that all the prosecution witnesses, except for the investigating officer, were close relations of the first informant. They were cross-examined at length wherein they made material improvements for which they were duly confronted. I have further noticed that earlier the complainant side had also filed a writ petition in this Court seeking the registration of the case, wherein the story put up by them was totally different from the one given in the FIR. No explanation whatsoever is available on the file with regard to the earlier story, so much so even the accused in the writ petition were different from the one which were prosecuted.
3. The case was got registered with the delay of 17 days. No explanation has been given about the delay in the registration of the case. It is also in evidence that the occurrence took place in a densely populated area, yet not a single independent witness was cited. On the other hand, the accused persons when examined under section 342 Cr.P.C, refuted the prosecution evidence an pleaded innocence. In support of their innocence they also produced seven witnesses. Two of the witnesses belonged to the same locality where the occurrence was alleged to have taken place.
4. They stated on Oath that no such occurrence ever took place. The allegation against the respondents was that they entered into the house of the first informant after giving him beating, dragged him across the lane into the house of one of the respondents. If the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged, it whould have taken some time as well and the commotion would have attracted the neighbours, but nobody was produced or cited as a witness.
5. I have gone through the judgment impugned and find cogent reasons. Have been given. The pvidence produced by the prosecution does not inspire confidence because there are many discrepancies and contradictions. The story put up by the prosecution is opposed to the story alleged in the writ petition filed by the complainant side for the registration of the case.
6. For what has been discussed above, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.