MUHAMMAD TUFAIL vs FAQIR MUHAMMAD and 3 others

' MUHAMMAD AHSAN BHOON, J.--- This appeal is directed against order dated 30-10-2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Depalpur District Okara whereby he acquitted the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 3.

2. As per F.I.R. Briefly the story of prosecution is that the complainant was resident of Hujra Shah Moqeem and he was cultivator. On 10-2-1997 at 10 a.m. His servants Zulfiqar and Manzoor residents of Mohallah Zahidpura were working in the fields when Bashir Ahmad and Noor (accused respondents Nos.2 and 3) were grazing their sheep. The sheep entered the field of complainant and destroyed the crop of cauliflower, upon which his servant Zulfiqar restrain them and after exchanging hot words accused Bashir etc. Took their sheep. After a while, Mehar Din, Mannan, Noor Muhammad (respondent No,2), Muhammad Bashir (respondent No,3) and Faqir Muhammad (respondent No,1) armed with Sotas came there and started abusing the servants of the complainant. Bashir (respondent No,3) etc. Inflicted Sota blows to Zulfiqar and Manzoor. On their hue and cry, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Saleem attracted to the place of occurrence.

Then the aforesaid accused ran away while taking .12 bore gun of the complainant. Hence F.I.R.

No,35 of 1997 offence under sections 337:-F(i)/337-A(iii)/379/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Hujra Shah Moqeem, District Okara on the statement of Muhammad Tufail complainant against the aecused persons.

3. After usual investigation the challan was submitted in the Court where charge was framed against the accused/respondents Nos.1 and 3 to which they pleaded not guilty-and claimed trial.

4. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused/ respondents Nos.1 to 3 in reply to question "why this case against you" stated "we have been involved in this case due to grudge and to vex us".

5. On the application of accused/respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed under section 249-A before the learned trial Court they were acquitted. Hence this appeal.

6. Heard.

7. I have gone through the whole evidence with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have found that in the F.I.R. Five accused namely Mehar Din, Mannan, Muhammad Bashir, Faqir and Noor Muhammad were nominated and none of them was attributed any specific role of causing injuries to Zulfiqar and Manzoor Ahmad P.Ws. Rather they were collectively attributed role of causing injuries to both the P.Ws. And out of said five accused the acquittal of accused Mehar Din and Manan was not challenged whereas their role was similar to that of respondents Nos.1 to 3.

Similarly injured P.W. Manzoor Ahmad was not produced during the trial and only Zulfiqar injured appeared as P.W.2 who even in his statement before the learned trial Court, did not A attribute any specific injury to any of the respondents Nos.1 to 3. The injuries on the person of Zulfiqar were not of grievous nature but still there were also two injured from the side of respondents namely Noor Muhammad and Bashir Ahmad respondents Nos.2 and 3 and said injuries were proved through the evidence of Dr. Sagheer Ahmad (P.W.1). The improvements were made by Muhammad Sharif (P.W.3) in his statement but said improvements were duly confronted during the trial. The contradiction in the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3 is also visible on record as Zulfiqar (P.W.2) stated that Noor Muhammad and Bashir were grazing sheep whereas injured P.W. Stated that Bashir and Mannan were grazing sheep at the time of occurrence, so both the P.Ws. Are divergent qua the names of Mannan and Noor Muhammad.

8. Another important aspect of the case is that Dr. Sagheer Ahmad (P.W.4) while appearing before the trial Court stated in his cross-examination that injuries suffered by Zulfiqar Ahmad (P.W.2) may be self-suffered or may be the result of fall. So I am of the considered view that the conclusion of acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 3 arrived at by the learned trial Court was not in disregard of the evidence rather the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court was possible on fair assessment and appraisal of evidence.

9. Another important aspect of the case is that this is case wherein the appeal against acquittal has been filed by Muhammad Tufail complainant (P.W.1). Neither he is the injured one nor he is eye-witness of the occurrence, even he is not related to injured P.W. Zulfiqar, so he cannot be termed as aggrieved within the meaning of section 417, Cr.P.C. It is settled proposition of law that the appeal against acquittal in a hurt case defined by the P.P.C. And tried by courts constituted under Criminal Procedure Code shall be competent by a person who has been hurt or by any of the legal heirs within the scheme of law otherwise the appeal against acquittal would be incompetent. Reliance can be placed on 4999 Appeal Cases 465.

10. For what has been discussed above, this appeal having no merits is dismissed.