REHMAT KHAN vs KHALID MEHMOOD & 5 others
This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents by the Tehsil Criminal Court, Bhimber, which granted them the benefit of doubt regarding charges under Sections 337/A-1, 337/F-1, 324, 506/34, and 109 of the Azad Penal Code. The appellant contended that the trial court committed a procedural illegality by failing to properly question the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding specific allegations in the F.I.R. and recovery memos. The core legal question was whether the trial court's failure to specifically query the accused about F.I.R. allegations and recovery memos during their Section 342 statement vitiated the acquittal. The Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the appeal, holding that the purpose of Section 342 is to allow the accused to explain evidence presented against them, not to re-examine F.I.R. allegations. The court found that the trial court had adequately put the relevant evidence to the accused and that the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or misreading of evidence, thereby upholding the acquittal.
- Does the failure to question an accused specifically about F.I.R. allegations during a Section 342 statement constitute a fatal procedural error?
- What is the primary legal purpose of recording a statement of an accused person under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Must an appellant demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from a trial court's procedural omission to secure a reversal of an acquittal?
- Section 337/A-1, Azad Penal Code
- Section 337/F-1, Azad Penal Code
- Section 324, Azad Penal Code
- Section 506/34, Azad Penal Code
- Section 109, Azad Penal Code
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The above titled appeal has been directed against the judgment of Tehsil Criminal Court Bhimber dated 30.8.2006 whereby, the respondents were acquitted of the charge by giving them the benefit of doubt by the said Court.
2. The brief facts forming the background of the instant appeal are that a case under Sections 337/A-1, 337/F-1, 324, 506/34, and 109, APC was registered against the accused-respondents at Police Station Bhimber on 26.6.2000. After usual investigation a challan against the accused- respondents was presented before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The trial Court after due process of law acquitted the accused-respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt vide its judgment dated 30.8.2006. Hence this appeal.
3. Raja Muhammad Shafique, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court during the statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. did not inquire about the allegation made against them in F.I.R as such has violated the procedure prescribed by Section 342, Cr.P.C. He has further contended that in addition to above violation, the accused-respondents have also not been asked to explain the recovery memos, as such a serious illegality has been committed which resulted into miscarriage of justice.
4. On the other hand, Ch. Bostan, the learned Counsel for the respondents while controverting the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents by giving them the benefit of doubt. No misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant thus, the judgment of the trial Court is in right direction. The learned Counsel defended the impugned judgment on all counts.
5. The learned Assistant Advocate General supported the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. I have given my due consideration to the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
7. It has been noticed that the above objection was not raised neither in the trial Court nor in grounds of appeal, by indicating the details, point is taken for the first time in arguments before this Court and even the counsel was unable to say that his client has in fact been prejudiced.
8. The perusal of the record shows that the statement under Section 342, Cr.P.0 was recorded, keeping in view the relevant law applicable to the case. Section 342, Cr.P.0 relates to the statement of an accused-person who is taken to trial, object of the section is to see as to whether the accused can give explanation of the evidence put against him. The simple object is to give the accused an opportunity of explanation of evidence put against him; and not the allegations made in A F.I.R, which of course, had already been explained during the statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C., thus, the contention of the learned Counsel being devoid of force is repelled.
9. So far as the other objection is concerned, that too has no basis, because after thorough perusal of the statement recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C, it is noticed that all the relevant evidence was put to the accused-respondents for explanation as such no mistake appears to have committed.
10. As the learned Counsel for the appellant has not raised any other objection on merits of the case, therefore, the order passed by trial Court is allowed to stand.
11. For the reasons listed above, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.