' SH. GHULAM SARWAR; J.---Respondents' acquittal of the charge under section 302/364/450/148/149, P.P.C. In a case registered at Police Station Gogera, District Okara, vide F.I.R.
No,159 of 1983 dated 13-8-1983 lodged by Muhammad Sarwar complainant, stands assailed in instant appeal presumably under section 417, Cr.P.C. Filed by the State.
2. Compendium of facts unfolded in F.I.R. Exh.PB, which, of-course, set the law into motion are that on 13-8-1983 i,e, the eventful and fateful day, Muhammad Sarwar complainant and his brother Anwar (deceased) were sitting at their Dera near their house, while, their other brothers had gone to Chah Arroray Wala for "Fateha Khawani". At about 3.30 p.m. Respondents/accused Dost Muhammad alias Dosa and Zafar alias Zafri, both armed with .12 bore gun and rifle respectively, along with Mansha (absconder), Akram and Shameer respectively armed with rifle, .12 bore gun and .12 bore pistol, reached there on two mares. Statedly, Dosa and Zafar accused stood at guard outside the entrance, while, the remaining three accused trespassed into their house, where his brother's wife Mst. Sarwar Bibi P.W.3 was sitting along with Fateh Bibi and Mst. Shafan. They abducted Mst. Sarwar Bibi after throwing her baby aged 8/9 months on a cot lying there. Upon cries of Mst. Sarwar Bibi, complainant Muhammad Sarwar and Anwar (deceased) reached the spot, and followed the accused/respondents, who were taking away Mst. Sarwar Bibi towards Thatha Bhattian. They tried to intervene, but the accused and Dosa resorted to firing in the air. However, Anwar (deceased) succeeded in laying hands upon Mst.
Sarwar Bibi and endeavoured to rescue her from the clutches of accused. Respondent/accused Shameer caught hold of him, felled him down and made him lie on the ground, while accused Mansha (absconder) and Zafar caused injuries to Anwar with butts of the rifles in their hands. Hue and cry attracted P.Ws. Sher and Abdul Razzaq, who also witnessed the occurrence. F.I.R. Further reveals that all the accused took away Mst. Sarwar Bibi with intent to murder her. Complainant then despatched injured Anwar to Hospital through Meer Muhammad and others and himself proceeded to report the matter to police.
3. Afore-said Mst. Sarwar Bibi real sister of respondent/accused Shameer had eloped with Muhammad Iqbal, brother of the complainant, and the accused Shameer had got a case of her abduction registered with police against the complainant and his brothers about one and half years prior to present incident. But the same was cancelled. As such Shameer nursed grudge against complainant party. Occurrence took place in this background and with such motive.
4. P.W.10 Maqbool Ahmad, S.I./ S.H.O., Police Station Gogera reached the spot and inspected the place of occurrence. Blood-stained earth was secured the spot and sealed into a parcel by means of memo. Exh.PE. Similarly, three empties P.2/1-3 of 12 bore and one empty P.3 of 7 MM rifle were taken into possession through memos. Exhs.PD and PF after the same were made into separate sealed parcels. Rough sketch of place of incident Exh.PN was also prepared. Statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. Of witnesses were taken down by Investigating Officer.
5. On receipt of information of sad demise of injured in hospital, he reached there on 14-8-1983 and prepared injury statement Exh.P0 and inquest report Dch.PQ, and then sent the dead body to morgue for autopsy. After post-mortem examination, Constable Shahbaz Khan P.W.13, produced before him Chaddar of deceased. Same was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PC.
Respondents/accused. Shameer and Akram were arrested on 15-8-1983 and on 16-8-1983. Mst.
Sarwar Bibi was produced before him by Shameer respondent/accused. Her statement was recorded by Investigating Officer. Sealed parcels of blood-stained earth and empties were deposited with Moharrir Head Constable for safe custody in Malkhana.
6. Respondent/accused Dosa and Zafar were arrested on 25-8-1983 and 4-9-1983 respectively.
Recoveries of 303 rifle P.4, gun P.5, pistol P.6,' 7 MM Rifle P:7 were effected through memos. Exhs.PG, PH, PI and PK at the instance of Zafar alias Zafri, Akram, Shameer and Dost Muhammad alias Dosa, respectively. Mansha accused, however, absconded and necessary proceeding in this context were taken.
7. In support of its case, 13 witnesses in all were examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Talib Hussain Patwari prepared the site plan. P.W.2, Muhammad Sarwar complainant, P.W.3, Mst. Sarwar Bibi and.
Sher Muhammad P.W.4, furnished ocular account of the gory incident. Abdul Ghafoor A.S.I. P.W.5 is the scribe of F.I.R. Exh.PB. Manzoor P.W.6 identified the dead body of deceased at the time of post- mortem examination. Shameer P.W.7 and P.W.8 Muhammad Yaqub are recovery witnesses. . P.W.9, Dr. Javed Rashid provided medical evidence. P.W.10, Maqbool Ahmad Investigating Officer testified about various steps taken during investigation carried out by him. Evidence of rest of witnesses is more or less of formal nature.
8. All incriminating features figuring in prosecution evidence were denied by the respondents/accused. No evidence in defence was produced.
9. Main consideration leading to the exoneration of the respondents/accused are the concisions that alleged abduction of Mst. Sarwar Bibi had not been established by the prosecution, her stay and living in the house of her husband's brother is doubtful and shrouded in mystery; she could not be left at the mercy of other accused by her brother Shameer; and very story of her escape and of return is highly improbable. Very manner and time of lodging of F.I.R. Was found to be not only mysterious but also counter to Medical Evidence. It was further observed that testimony of eye- witnesses as also recovery witnesses is not worth any credence, what to speak of implicit reliance.
10. Instant appeal has been resorted to with the notion that the case did not reach its logical culmination in shape of conviction of respondents/accused.
11. Following illuminating observations made in The State v. Muhammad Sharif and 3 others (1995 SCM R 635) furnish guideline on the subject:-- "There is marked difference between appraisement of evidence in the appeal against conviction and in the appeal against acquittal. In the appeal against acquittal, same rigid method of appraisement is not to be applied as there is already finding of acquittal given by the Court or Court below after proper analysis of evidence made cm done according to law. In the acquittal appeal, interference is made only when it appears that there has been gross misreading of evidence which amounts to miscarriage of justice."
12. In the instant case, fabric woven by the prosecution before trial went into tatters during trial and exposed every crude attempt to serious and sizzling infirmities. Statements of star witnesses like P.W.3 and P.W.4 neither inspire confidence nor they can be taken to be disinterested or independent witnesses". Even an exercise of serious ratiocination in this context, is bound to end in smoke, because of inherent lacunas.
13. Be that as it may, only piece of evidence, testimony of P.W.3, Mst. Sarwar Bibi, so called abductee, stands shattered on the bare fact that she had not received even a scratch during whole exercise and process. Story advanced by her is neither probable nor convincing. On the face of it, it appears to be pretended one and the figment of her imaginations. Rather same can be termed to be cock and bull story. As a necessary corollary, edifice erected upon her statement is bound to crumble down like house of cards. As a matter of fact, prosecution case stands impaired beyond repair and was rightly taken so by learned trial Court, who, no way, seems to have fallen in ignoratio elenchi, while treating the testimony of P.W., Mst. Sarwar Bibi as to be of little value. As such the factors agitated in memorandum of appeal and the grounds urged therein are palpably fallacious.
14. By no stretch of imagination, deposition of P.W.3, Mst. Sarwar Bibi can be taken to be apodictic as if she spoke as an oracle. Seemingly, she prevaricated with impunity. Such statement and that too without an iota or scintilla of independent corroborative evidence cannot lead to conviction of the respondents, under any canon of law. Meagre evidence, adduced by the prosecution, can hardly afford valid basis for conviction of respondents/accused.
15. As expounded in Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain alias Mithu and 6 others (1994 SCM R 1928); presumption of innocence of an accused becomes double upon his acquittal after trial and no interference is called for unless the judgment of acquittal is perverse and the reasons, therefore, are artificial and ridiculous.
16. When tested on the touchstone, laid down by august appeal Court, prosecution case has no legs to stand. Re-appraisal of evidence, data and material on record, affirms the inferences deduced by learned trial Court, and rather no other view is possible in wake thereof.
17. Acquittal of respondents, accordingly, is neither exceptionable nor assailable.
' Appeal, concomitantly, merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.