MUHAMMAD GULZAR - vs ADALAT HUSSAIN and others
This criminal appeal challenged an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate 1st Class regarding an incident involving injuries under Section 337-F(i)(iv)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant contended that the trial court's acquittal was based on unsound reasoning, arguing that the ocular evidence of the complainant and witnesses was corroborated by medical testimony. The respondents defended the acquittal, highlighting the failure to examine the radiologist to prove the nature of the injuries (fractures) and the significant lapse of time (2001–2011) since the incident. The Court held that the prosecution failed to legitimately prove the nature of the injuries because the radiologist was not produced, leaving only the lesser charge under Section 337-F(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Emphasizing the principle that an accused enjoys a dual presumption of innocence following an acquittal, and noting the significant passage of time, the Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's judgment. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that reversing an acquittal requires compelling grounds which were absent here.
- Does the failure to produce a radiologist to verify a fracture report undermine the prosecution's case regarding the nature of injuries?
- Is an acquittal order reversible when the prosecution fails to prove the nature of injuries and significant time has elapsed since the incident?
- What is the standard for reversing an acquittal judgment in a criminal case?
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 154, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MAZHAR IQBAL SIDHU, J.---Muhammad Gulzar appellant after having dissatisfied with order of acquittal dated 8-11-2008 passed by the learned Magistrate 1st Class, Talagang in a case registered vide F.I.R. No, 101 dated 10-8-2001 under section 337-F(i)(iv)/34, P.P.C. At Police Station, Talagang, whereby respondents Adalat Hussain, Meher Khan and Amir Iqbal were acquitted of the charge allegedly for causing injuries to P.W.1 Muhammad Gulzar, appellant-complainant and P.
W.2. Muhammad Razzaq, has made a rap at the portal of this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.1 Muhammad Gulzar, the complainant and P.W.2 Muhammad Razzaq both received grievous injuries during the incident; ,their testimony was supported by P.W.3 Manzoor Hussain, an eye-witness; the statement of P.W.5 Dr. Abdul Samad was also corroborated by the ocular account; no harmonious element in between the ocular and the medical evidence figures; on the flimsy, fanciful and unsound reasons, the impugned judgment was handed down and the same is liable to be reversed to conviction and sentence in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has resisted the arguments by submitting that the impugned judgment is well reasoned; the learned trial court has held that motive has not been proved and when the right hand of P.W.1 Muhammad Gulzar, the complainant was found fractured, then how he could sign his statement under section 154, Cr.P.C; in order to prove the nature of the injuries Radiologist was not examined; more so, much water has flown under the bridges since 2001 to 2011, therefore, on the basis of doctrine of impossibility, it is legitimately expedient not to reverse the judgment of acquittal into conviction.
4. Learned Law Officer has remained mute as to the arguments of this case.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. It is a legal parlance that every accused is blue eyed child of law and is presumed to be innocent unless and until he is held guilty by due course of law. Maxim exists that error in acquittal is better than the error in conviction and more so, after yielding acquittal dual presumption of innocence is attached with an accused. Under these guidelines, the record has been perused and arguments have been appreciated. In order to prove the nature of injuries Radiologist has not been produced by The prosecution and the examining doctor has relied upon the report of the Radiologist. In this way, nature of injuries i.e, fracture has riot been legitimately proved. Now implication of section 337-F(i), P.P.C. Remains in the field. In this way, when the respondents at one stage during the proceedings had paid a visit behind the bars and when much water has flown under the bridges since 2001 to 2011, in these circumstances, impossibility exists to reverse the order of acquittal into conviction. Even otherwise, no perversity, illegality and incorrectness have been found in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the instant appeal being devoid of force is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- FAHIM AHMAD Versus ABID HUSSAIN 2013 YLR 695