' This special leave to appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 23-4-2002 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Arifwala, whereby he acquitted respondents Nos.1 to 5 namely Allah Ditta, Muhammad Bashir, Hamidan Bibi and Razia Bibi daughters of Muhammad Bashir respondent No,2 and Shamim Bibi of the charge under section 380, P.P.C. In a complaint case titled Qamar Abdul Sattar Bajwa v. Allah Ditta and others.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through the impugned judgment. According to complaint the respondents stayed in the house of the complainant on the night in between 26/27-8-2000 and left the house in the morning of 27-8-2000. It was further alleged that respondents stole gold, ornaments weighing 22 Tolas belonging to his wife. P.W.1 complainant, P.W.2 Muhammad Bashir and P.W.3 Abdul Jabbar, brother of the complainant, conceded that they had not seen the respondents committing the offence. P.W.1 also conceded that in fact he informed P.W.2 about the occurrence. The P.Ws. Proved to be inimical towards the respondents during trial, as sister of P.W.1 married with respondent No,1 Allah Ditta, which resulted A into separation. P.W.3 is real brother of P.W.1. As far as P.W.2 is concerned, his wife respondent No,4 Razia Bibi was not living with him and therefore, he had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against Mst. Razia Bibi respondent No,4. As Omitted during cross-examination a chain of litigation was pending between the parties and the parties were contesting suits pending before the different Courts. No independent witness was produced to support the allegations during trial. It is hard to believe that with the background of hostility, the respondents would spend a night in the house of the complainant.
3. The P.Ws. Have contradicted each other on the material points. P.W.1 stated that on the night of occurrence the respondent slept in his room, while P.W.3, who is real brother of P.W.1, stated that male respondents slept at Dera and the female respondents slept inside the house in the courtyard. As far as P.W.2 is concerned, leaving aside his hostility towards respondent No,4 Mst.
Razia Bibi, he was informed about the occurrence by the complainant P.W.1 and was not an eye- witness, therefore, his statement was of no consequences. Neither any proof of ownership of gold ornaments was placed on the record nor any description of the gold ornaments was given during trial. The respondents are closely related to each other and had strained relations with the complainant, therefore, I am of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the case of the prosecution was not free from doubt.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner remained unable to point out any misreading or non- reading of evidence on the part of the trial Court. The judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Court was based on valid reasons and was neither arbitrary nor perverse. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court are based upon the fair assessment of the evidence. The findings of the trial Court could not be brushed aside lightly or on mere assumption and no interference can be made in the judgment of acquittal on the ground that a different conclusion was possible. I am further fortified in my view by the judgments rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamraiz Khan PLD 1985 SC 11 and Muhammad Iqbal v. Sana Ullah and others PLD 1997 SC 569.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that I find no occasion to interfere with the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 5, therefore, this petition is dismissed and the leave is refused.