1. ' The appellant/complainant Abdul Malik has assailed the judgment by present appeal under section 417(2-A), Cr.P.C. Whereby the respondents/accused Shabir Ahmed, Nazir Ahmed, Zulfiqar Ali, Iqbal, Ali Nawaz, Mumtaz, Bashir Ahmed were acquitted in Criminal Case No,180 of 1998 by the learned Civil Judge and F.C.M., Lakhi Ghulam Shah on 8-5-1999, which arose out of F.I.R. No,52 of 1997 of Police Station, Chak under sections 337-A(i)F(1) and 148, P.P.C.
2. ' The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed by the appellant/complainant Abdul Malik in his F.I.R., dated 28-11-1997 are that he owns agricultural land in Deh Muhammada Bagh.
3. Respondents/accused Bashir Ahmed demanded land from appellant/complainant but appellant/ complainant refused to sell the same whereupon respondent/accused Bashir Ahmed was annoyed and issued threats to appellant/complainant that he will cause him injuries.
4. ' On the alleged day of incident i.e, 28-11-1997 appellant/complainant alongwith his brothers Abdul Ghani and Abdul Nabi was working in the land when at about 1-30 p.m. Respondents/accused Bashir Ahmed, Shabir Ahmed, Haji Ali Nawaz, Mumtaz, Iqbal, Zulfiquar and Nazeer Ahmed came there. Respondents/accused Ali Nawaz, Mumtaz, Iqbal and Zulfiquar were armed with Lathies, while Nazeer Ahmed was armed with hatchet and Bashir Ahmed and Shabir Ahmed were empty- handed. The respondent/accused Bashir Ahmed abused the appellant/complainant and instigated others whereupon the persons armed with hatchet caused hatchet injuries to appellant/complainant Abdul Malik and respondent/accused Mumtaz and Iqbal caused Lathi blows to appellant/complainant and respondents/accused Haji Ali Nawaz and Zulfiquar caused Lathi blows to P.Ws. Abdul Ghani and Abdul Nabi. The appellant/complainant party raised cries. The respondents/accused seeing the villagers went away to their houses hurling abuses. The appellant/complainant rushed to police station where he lodged the report.
5. ' After usual investigation the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 7 were sent up to stand trial.
6. ' The trial Court after completing all the codal formalities framed the charge against the respondents/accused 1 to 7 Exh.2. They did not plead guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.
7. ' The prosecution in support of its case examined Medical Officer Doctor Khurshed Ahmed Exh.10. He produced medical certificate of injured Abdul Ghani Exh.10-A. The appellant/complainant Abdul Malik Exh.10-B. He produced F.I.R. Exh.11-A. Mashir Abdul Razak Exh.12. He produced Mashimama of injuries and place of Wardat Exhs.12-A and 12-B respectively P.W. Abdul Ghani Exh.13, P.W. Abdul Nabi and A.S.-I. Ghulam Kadir Exh.14. The P.S.I. Closed the prosecution side on behalf of the State by his statement Exh.16.
8. ' The statements of respondents/accused Exhs.17 to 23 under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were recorded wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution. The respondent/accused Bashir Ahmed further stated in his statement Exh.17 that he is innocent and all the P.Ws. Are interested and due to enmity and dispute over agricultural land present case was planted against them. In support of this contention he produced the order of the Member, Land Utilization Board of Revenue, Sindh Exh.17-A and also copy of the order of Additional Commissioner, Larkana Exh.17-B. The respondents/accused did not examine themselves on oath as contemplated under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused by impugned judgment as stated hereinabove.
9. ' I have heard Mr. Azhar Hussain learned counsel on behalf of appellant/complainant and Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned A.A.-G. On behalf of the State. The latter supports the impugned judgment.
10. ' I have perused the impugned judgment as well as the material placed on record.
11. ' The perusal of the same shows that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or misreading of evidence. It will be pertinent to produce hereinbelow the operative part of the impugned judgment:- ' "Admittedly the place of Wardat is situated in village Mahmooda Bagh which is consisting about 250 houses of different costs it is also admitted facts that hospital, shops and school is just adjacent to place of Ward& but is strange to note that no person was attracted on the cries of complainant party. Therefore, sufficient doubt is created about the prosecution story. It is also admitted position that according to F.I.R. P.W. Abdul Nabi also received injury at the hands of accused persons even he himself disposed before his arrest that he received Lathies injury at the hands of accused but neither police prepared his Mashirnama of injuries nor referred him to M.O.
12. For treatment. Moreover, it is also admitted facts that all the prosecution witnesses are member of one and same family. Police did not examine any other independent witnesses to corroborate the version of complainant party. Moreover, there is material contradiction between the statement of P.
13. Ws. Abdul Ghani and Abdul Nabi and complainant Abdul Malik. Other aspect of this case is that all alleged witnesses are Government servant how they can gather on working day. It is also admitted facts on the S. No,647 were alleged fight took place there is contracted hospital, sewerage disposal and school are situated. It is admitted facts that land in question is previously granted in the name of Abdul Razak who is uncle of complainant Abdul Malik and P.W. Abdul Ghani and Abdul Nabi is cancelled by Additional Commissioner, Larkana. On the pretext that S. Nos.647 and 648 come within 20 chains of village Mahmooda Bagh and same area is covered by the construction and Abdul Razak is Government servant and is resident of different village as such he is not eligible for grant hence the said S.Nos. Were allowed for village Asaish/Extension.
14. ' There is also conflict between ocular evidence and medical certificate. According to version of Abdul Ghani he received two injuries one each by accused Mumtaz, Iqbal but according to medical certificate he received three injuries. Another aspect of this case is that according to medical certificate duration of injuries are within 24 hours but according to complainant party within 30 minutes of lodging the F.I.R. They reached at R.H.C. Chak there they get first aid within no time. It is also admitted facts that complainant after consultation with Abdul Razaq first he approached police for lodging the report no crime weapons i.e, Lathies and hatchets were recovered by police. I have also gone through the law cited at bar.
15. ' In present case there is only (4) interested P.Ws. Out of which three (3) are brothers inter se and one is their uncle and all are hostile against the present accused over matter grant of S.Nos.647, 648 of Deh Mahmooda Bagh. The evidence of complainant and P.Ws. Being full of contradiction interested and inimical could not be believed unless it is corroborated from any unimpeachable independent piece of evidence. No reliance can be placed on evidence of since witnesses alone.
16. As many as (7) persons one and same family have been implicated in the case.
17. ' The objections raised by learned Advocate for the complainant in rebuttal of contentions made by learned Advocate for accused have got no force.
18. ' On the foregoing discussion and analysis of the evidence and circumstances of this case it appears that there is evidence of interested witnesses on the record which is full of contradiction and discrepancies which is also not corroborated from any independent piece of evidence.
19. Coming from any quarter. Moreover, enmity between the parties over matter of grant of S.Nos.647 and 648 of Deh Mahmooda Bagh is also admitted, therefore, possibility of false implication of the accused in this case could not be ruled out. I, therefore, have come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. I, therefore, decide point No,1 is not proved."
20. ' The plain reading of the findings of the trial Court reproduced hereinabove shows that the present case is out come of hostility existing between the parties. No independent prosecution witness was examined by the prosecution. The ocular and medical evidence is in conflict. The number of accused involved in the case and role ascribed to them, does not commensurate with the number of the injuries mentioned in the medical certificate issued by the Medical Officer. Apart from that there are many other glaring contradictions and material discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. It is well-settled that it is not necessary that for giving benefit of doubt Court must mention each and every circumstance in the judgment. Even a single circumstance, which creates doubt in the mind of reasonable and prudential mind is sufficient for acquittal.
21. ' In the case of appeal against acquittal always presumption of double innocence is attached to the accused. The considerations for appeal against acquittal are quite different from the appeal against conviction. The Courts are always slow in setting aside the acquittal. However, in the case where on the face of it a gross injustice is made by the trial Court. The evidence was misread or misapprciated or Court acted without jurisdiction then the appellate Court can intervene in the matter and come to the rescue of the aggrieved party by setting aside the acquittal. In this context reliance can be placed on the case of Yar Muhammad and others v. The State reported in 1992 SCM R 96.
22. ' For the foregoing reasons the appeal merits no consideration and stands dismissed.