' Instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-6-1997 passed by the Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha whereby she acquitted the accused I respondents Nos.1 to 4.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 2-4-1993 while Liaqat Ali son of Abdul Aziz complainant was going on his motorcycle, he was waylaid by Liaqat Ali armed with .12 bore gun, Khalid Mehmood armed with hatchet, Muhammad Ramzan armed with .12 bore gun, Iftikhar alias Bhola armed with rifle. They are said to have caused injuries on the different parts of the injured.
The F.I.R. Was, however, lodged by the father of the injured. After usual investigation the case was sent up in the Court for trial.
3. A charge under section 324/34, P.P.C. Was framed against the accused / respondents Nos. 1 to 4 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to bring home guilt to the accused prosecution examined P.W.1 Liaqat Ali injured, P.W.2 Abdul Aziz complainant, Muhammad Aslam P.W.3, Muhammad Anwar P.W.4, Aman Ullah A.S.I P.W.5, Dr. Muhammad Aslam P.W.6, Zulifqar Ali constable P.W.7, Muzafar Ali P.W.8 and Dr. Asif Hussain C.W-
1. Thereafter, the learned Public Prosecutor closed prosecution evidence.
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused denied the prosecution version and stated that they have been implicated in this case falsely.
6. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution the trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents Nos. 1 to 4 vide judgment under appeal.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. Stand of the learned counsel for the appellant / complainant is that trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its true perspective. While explaining his contention he submitted that the injured Liaqat Ali has received as many as 9 which fact stands corroborated from the statement of Dr. Muhammad Aslam, (P.W.6) as well as from the statement of Liaqat Ali injured (P.W.
I). He contended that even if the result of injuries Nos. 3 to 9 is not available on record yet the fact remains that injury No,5 which is a fire-arm injury has been received by the injured Liaqat Ali. He further contended that trial Court has not referred to the evidence which has come on record and has tried to bring the discrepancies which do appear in the record but are not of serious nature, which make the case of the prosecution doubtful. He further contended that appeal is a continuation of trial as such the entire evidence which has come on record can be appraised and analyzed at this stage and in this respect placed reliance upon Muhammad Siddique v. The State (1993 P.Cr.LJ.75). He further contended that trial Court has not referred to the statements proving the case of the prosecution and as such this amounts to misreading of the evidence and placed reliance upon Zaheer Din v. The State (1993 S.C.M.R. 1628) and Muhammad Ashraf alias Chaudhry v.
The State (1994 SCM R 667). He thus contended that judgment under appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as such the instant appeal be accepted and the accused-respondents be dealt with in accordance with law.
9. Conversely, the impugned judgment has been supported by the learned counsel for the accused/.Respondents Nos.1 to 4. To supplement his contention he submitted that out of accused/respondents No,1 to 4 Iftikhar and Muhammad Ramzan have been found innocent as a result of investigation AND this fact makes the case of the prosecution doubtful. He further contended that Medical Officer, Sargodha nor Medical Officer, Lahore who examined the injured, have been produced in the Court and this fact further gives a fatal blow to the prosecution version.
He also contended that prosecution has tried to base its case on the statement of Dr. Muhammad Aslam (P.W.6) as well as Dr. Muhammad Asif C.W.1 but their statements are of no avail to the prosecution. While explaining his contention he submitted that Dr. Muhammad Aslam's (P.W.6) evidence is -not trustworthy in view of his previous conduct and evidence of Dr. Muhammad Asif C.W.1 can also be not relied upon as he has neither examined the injured nor operated him and has prepared his notes simply on the, chart prepared by other doctor. He further contended that trial Court has given reasoning for arriving at decision as such the impugned judgment does not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of the prosecution evidence.
10. It is evident from the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties as well as from the perusal of judgment dated 11-6-1997 that the trial Court has referred to the evidence of the prosecution which has come on record while formulating her findings. The trial Court has referred to the discrepancies which have cropped up in the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant has not been able to point out any discrepancy so for it relates to the findings incorporated in paragraphs Nos.15 to 19. His contention is that even if the discrepancies referred in the impugned judgment are accepted as correct yet the fact remains that injured had received a fire-arm injury which fact itself proves that he was waylaid and was caused injuries at the hands of accused/respondents Nos.1 to 4, out of whom one was armed with fire-arm. The fire- arm injury, as per prosecution version, is attributed to Muhammad Ramzan -accused/ respondent who has already been found innocent by the prosecution agency. The other injuries Nos.3 to 9 do appear on the person of the injured yet no final opinion regarding the said injuries is available on the record.
11. In a case of acquittal the judgment of acquittal-can only be reversed and set aside if the said judgment is the result of absolute misreading and non-reading of the evidence. The mere fact that some other inference can be drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record, is not a ground to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. The reasoning advanced by the trial Court fortify the judgment under appeal. As such the same is maintained. Consequently appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.