MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs THE STATE and 2 others
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, which acquitted the respondents in a private complaint filed by the appellant under Section 337-A(i)(ii) and Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant alleged that the respondents assaulted his daughter following a domestic dispute. The trial court acquitted the accused after finding significant discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses' statements and contradictions between the ocular account and the medical evidence. Upon review, the High Court examined the record and affirmed the trial court's findings. The Court held that the trial court's appraisal of evidence adhered to established legal standards and that there was no misreading or misappreciation of evidence. Emphasizing the principle that appellate courts are generally reluctant to interfere with judgments of acquittal absent clear illegality, the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no force in the appellant's contentions. The appeal against one respondent was declared infructuous due to his death during the proceedings.
- Is an appellate court justified in interfering with a trial court's judgment of acquittal where the trial court has correctly appraised the evidence?
- Does the existence of contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence provide sufficient grounds for the acquittal of an accused in a criminal complaint?
- Section 337-A(i)(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' BASHIR A. MUJAHID, J.---The appellant has challenged judgment dated 26-9-2000 passed by learned Judi. Magistrate Ist Class in private complaint filed by the appellant against Muhammad Umar and Abdul Ghafoor under section 337-A (i)(ii), L(b), 34, P.P.C.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the appellant got registered F . I. R . No,420/97 under section 337-A (i)(ii), L(ii) 34, P.P.C. At P.S. Factory Area, Faisalabad and the case was found false and the respondents/accused were discharged by the Judi. Magistrate due to which the appellant filed private complaint which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
3. ' The allegation in the complaint is that the appellant's daughter namely, Riffat was married to Muhammad Umar three years ago and out of the wedlock three daughters were born and Muhammad Umar intended to contract second marriage and with the advice of his father Abdul Ghafoor and mother Hashamt, co-accused, Mst. Riffat left her husband's house on 28-7-1997 at 8 a.m. Along with her daughters. The accused tried to take away her grand daughters on which quarrel took place and Muhammad Umar gave tea' blow on the head of his daughter and Abdul Ghafoor also gave Danda blow.
4. ' After recording the prosecutipn evidence and the Court -witnesses, the statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And the trial culminated into acquittal of the respondents.
5. ' Abdul Ghafoor, respondent died meanwhile, therefore, to his extent the appeal has become infructuous. Muhammad Umar, respondent is present in person.
6. ' According to learned counsel for the appellant ocular account furnished by the complainant at Riffat Bibi injured was corroborated by medical evidence and the case against the respondent was proved beyond shadow of doubt.
7. ' Muhammad Umar respondent, learned State counsel have opposed the appeal and supported the impugned judgment.
8. ' I have given due consideration to the contentions raised at the bar and have also examined the record.
9. ' The reasons given by the learned trial Court in para-17 of the judgment finding discrepancies in the statements of the P.Ws. And contradictions in medical evidence and the ocular account are borne out from the record. The appraisal made by the trial Court is upto the norms and standard laid down by the Superior Courts and the Courts are always reluctant to interfere in the judgment of acquittal, therefore, I find no illegality, misreading or misappreciation of evidence in the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed having no force.