' Briefly, facts of the case are that the petitioner got registered a case F.I.R. No,136, dated 17-8-1988 with Police Station Garmaharaja under section 325/324, P.P.C. Against the respondents; as alleged the respondents Nos.1 to 3 being influential persons; the police did not take any action; hence the petitioner was constrained to lodge a private complaint.
2. The trial Court, after recording the preliminary evidence, summoned the respondents Nos.1 to 3 and framed formal charge under section 324/325/34, P.P.C. Against them. During the period of examination of petitioner's witnesses; the respondents moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C.; resultantly the petitioner's complaint was dismissed and accused respondents were acquitted of the charge vide order, dated 10-3-1990; hence this petition under section 417(2), Cr.P.C.
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel at length and have perused the record with their able assistance.
4. The learned trial Court observed that as civil litigation is pending between the parties in various Courts; from the copies of civil suits produced before the Court; it appears that civil litigation is also pending between the respondents and Dr. Saleem who medically examined the petitioner and issued medico-legal report; on the basis of which FIR, as well-complaint has been lodged by the petitioner; and came to the conclusion that the medical certificate issued by P.W. Dr. Saleem is not worth reliance.
5. Once the learned trial Judge, after recording preliminary evidence; formed the opinion and initiated proceedings against the accused; is duty bound to record the evidence of prosecution witnesses; without recording the evidence of P.W. Dr.. Muhammad Saleem and cross-examination by the respondents to prove the fact of enmity; the learned trial Court is not justified to base his opinion on surmises and conjectures.
6. It is well-settled principle in criminal jurisprudence, that in a criminal case, the evidence of an interested person is not to be rejected mechanically merely because the witness is an interested person but the Court has to be careful in weighing such evidence and see, whether, the evidence strikes the Court as genuine or as possible, because a witness is normally considered to be independent unless the witness has cause, such as, enmity against the accused to wish to implicate him falsely. Further, it is elementary that each case must be decided on the evidence recorded in it and evidence recorded in another case cannot be taken into account in arriving at the decision.
7. The Qanun-e-Shahadat prescribes a particular manner in which evidence is to be given, evidence must be given in that manner and in no other manner; I am of the view; a judgment, which is based on material not in evidence or which has been improbably admitted or on personal knowledge of the Judge cannot be said to be in accordance with law.
8. The observation of the learned trial Judge in the absence of evidence of Dr. Saleem merely based on the copies of civil suits produced before him; is not tenable in the eye of law. I, therefore, accept the appeal; set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court, dated 10-3-1990. The learned trial Court is directed to record the evidence of petitioner and decide the case on merits within a period of 3 months without any delay.