Mushtaq Ahmad vs Ghulam Mustafa

ORDER ORDER - M. A. ZAFAR, J.- Mushtaq Ahmad appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 10.09.2003 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Rawalpindi whereby he acquitted Ghulam Mustafa respondent from the charges-arising out of FIR No. 162, dated 19.4.2000 under Sections 420, 468, 471,167 and T94, PPC registered with Police Station Gunjmandi, Rawalpindi.

2. That during' the trial Mushtaq Ahmad, S.I. Complainant/appellant appeared as PW-3 and in his deposition he levelled the following allegation against Ghulam Mustafa respondent then S.I accused as Under:- . "i. That in the year 1998, complainant registered the case FIR No. 62, dated 18.2.1998 u/s. 302/34, P.P.C, at PS Sadiqabad Rawalpindi on the statement of Shakeel Ahmad complainant against Uaqat Ali accused who was arrested on 21.2.1998. The case was investigated by different police officers, In the meanwhile, Muhammad Shakeel appeared before DSP Siddique Shah, CIA and at his request the investigation was transferred to Ghulam Mustafa, S.I. Accused and he wrote the case diary No. 50 on 27.6.1998 and added Section 109, PPC the he joined Patwari halqa in the investigation and recorded the fictitious tatement of Umar Hayat, PW. ii. That on 8.7.1998, in case FIR No. 316/97, u/s. 302, PPC registered at PS New Town. Accused took the physical remand of two days of Uaqat Ali accused wherein Liaquat Ali accused disclosed that he had murdered father of Shakeel Ahmad and Ghulam Mustafa accused recorded the disclosure made by the accused in the FIR No. 62 and added from himself in the case diary that witness took Rs. One lac from Uaqat accused and he (Uaqat) got recovered the weapon of offence which was handed over to him (witness PW-3) and Ghulam Mustafa accused changed the said case diary and wrote again the statement of Uaqat Ali accused wherein he mentioned that Uaqat Ali accused paid Rs. One lac to him (the witness PW-3) and threw Tokka weapon in the Nallah. iii. That he changed the paras Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 of case diary No. 56 and substituted with a new case diaries without putting his signature under the statement of the witnesses on the original case file and he put the signature afterwards in the copy of police file. iv. That he recorded the case diary No. 55 in case FIR No. 62 on 7.10.1998 and annexed the statement of the witnesses u/s. 161, Cr.P. C, dated 7.8.1998 with the said police diaries.. v. That he wrote case diary No. 56 on 7.10.1998 but in the copy of case diary of the said date he mentioned the dated 7.11.1998.

Vi.that Ghulam Mustafa accused was suspended by SSP Rawalpindi on 21.9.1998 in another case but he recorded the police diary Nos. 65, 57, 58, 59, 60 & 61 in case PIR No. 62 despite this suspension.

Vii. That on his application Javed Khan, DSP Range Crime Branch PWS conducted the enquiry and Javed Khan sent the report to the SSP Rawalpindi and Ghulam Mustafa accused was dismissed on 10.2.2002.

Viii. That motive of the occurrence was that daughter of Mushtaq Ahmad was murdered by Imran son of Muhammad Imran her husband. The father of Imran was posted as SHO P.S. R.A. Bazar and Ghulam Mustafa accused is relative of Irfan Inspector and they have been pressurizing him for compromise in the murder case and on his refusal, a criminal case was registered against him.

3. The learned Trial Court after examining the record came to the following conclusion: "There is a single statement of Mushtaq complainant, PW-3 to substantiate the allegation levelled by him in the complaint Ex.PC and the deposition made before this Court and none other PW except Javed Khan, PW-5 supported his version.

The complainant did not produce the case diary of FIR No. 316/97 under Section 302, P.P.C, registered at PS New Town wherein Uaqat AH accused had disclosed that he had murdered father of Shakeel Ahmad and the accused added himself in the case diary No. 65 that the complainant PW took Rs. One lac from Uaqat accused for extending the favour to him. The prosecution did not place on the record any case diary which he had changed later on. The case diary No. 56 Mark-A/6 of case FIR No. 62 is available on the record wherein three paras are mentioned but the, prosecution did not place on the record the paras Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5 of case diary No. 56 which allegedly were substituted with new case diaries by the accused and police diary No. 55 did not bear any date, the date 7.10,98 referred by the witness was not the date of the proceedings rather the same date was of the office of the S.P. City Rawalpindi wherein it is mentioned that 'ShamaI Missal Howay'. However, the statements of two witnesses Muhammad Bashir and Rehmat Din were recorded on 4.8,98 u/s. 161, Cr.P.C, In case diary No. 56 Mark A/6 was written on 7.10.98 but the copy of case diary wherein date 7.11.98 was mentioned has not been produced by the prosecution. The case diary No. 57 Mark-A/7 was written on 9.10.98 and the case diaries Nos. 57 to 61 in case F/R No. 62 have not been produced by the prosecution. The prosecution did not place on the record any order showing the suspension of Ghulam Mustafa accused but the defence has produced the attested copy of the order Ex.DD which reveals that accused was suspended on 21.9.98 and was reinstated in service from the date of suspension vide order dated 16.12.98. There is no evidence on record that on which date the suspension order was conveyed to Ghulam Mustafa accused. The case diary No. 54, Mark-A/4 of the disclosure of Uaqat accused about the murder of Haji Muhammad Ramzan deceased and about the recovery of Rs. One lac and the Tokka weapon was recovered from his possession by Mushtaq complainant-of the instant case."

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record I find no misreading, nonreading of evidence and no exception can be taken to the order passed by the-learned Trial Court acquitting the respondent. There is solitary statement of the complainant and there is no other evidence, of worth consideration to substantiate his version. No witness was produced to prove that the case diaries were written by Ghulam Mustafa accused-respondent and even no expert was produced to prove that the case diaries were in the handwriting of Ghulam Mustafa accused-respondent and even the original case diaries were brought on record. When the respondent was denying that he has not written the diaries and the same are not in his handwriting, it was the duty of the prosecution to prove his writing by producing a handwriting expert but the prosecution failed to do the same. Moreover, the occurrence took place in 1998, case was registered in 2000 and the respondent earned acquittal in the year 2003 and at present we are at the end of 2008 but the present appeal is still at motion stage, the respondent has already faced the agony of the trial etc. During this period case was fixed only on four dates but out of said four dates on two dates of hearing learned counsel for the appellant did not appear.

5. For the fore going reasons, there is no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.