MURAD ALI vs MUHAMMAD AMAN and others
This criminal appeal was filed under Section 417(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the complainant challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the trial court in a case registered under Sections 365, 324, 353, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal warranted interference due to misappraisal of evidence. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to establish its case through reliable evidence, noting material contradictions in the complainant's statement, lack of independent corroboration, absence of injuries, and failure of identification. The court dismissed the appeal in limine, reaffirming the principle that an accused acquires a double presumption of innocence upon acquittal, which appellate courts will not disturb unless the judgment is arbitrary, fanciful, or capricious.
- What is the evidentiary weight of an acquittal by a trial court when challenged in an appeal?
- Does the absence of injuries on an alleged abductee cast doubt on the prosecution case of physical assault and firing?
- Can an acquittal be set aside when the prosecution statement contains material contradictions and lacks independent corroboration?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 417(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.---The acquitted accused-respondents and their absconding co- accused were charged in case F.I.R. No.342 dated 9-6-2010 under sections 365/324/353/148/149, P.P.C. Registered against them at PS Hangu. They were tried for the offence, found innocent and acquitted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 8-10-2011. However, the absconding co- accused Surat Ali was declared proclaimed offender and perpetual warrant of arrest was issued against him. Feeling aggrieved Murad Ali complainant has filed the, instant appeal under section 417(2), Cr. P. C. Challenging the validity of the impugned judgment.
2. The prosecution case is that the then S.H.O. Hangu received information that Murad Ali was abducted and was being taken away from village Lakhti Banda towards mountain known as `Gosarh'. He along with other four police officials started chasing the accused. He found a Motor Car No.KF 312/ID left by the accused on the said road and the accused along with the abductee were going towards the mountain on foot. They started firing at the police party with intent to kill.
The local police in. Retaliation also made fire. Consequently the accused left the abductee and ran away towards the Jungle. The Motorcar was seized by the police and the abductee was recovered.
The above mentioned case was registered against the accused on the report of Murad Ali/Appellant.
3. The prosecution in order to establish its case against the accused had examined 5 witnesses in all and closed the prosecution evidence. The accused-respondents were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution. They neither opted to record their statements on Oath under section 340(2), Cr. P.0 . Nor wished to produce any evidence in their defence and then after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for both the sides, the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 8-10-2011 acquitted the present accused-respondents.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at considerable length and carefully gone through the record of the case.
5. Perusal of the record shows that the statement of the abductee/appellant is replete with material contradictions, because his statement is not in line with the report made to the police. No private independent and disinterested witness was associated to support the prosecution case.
The complainant has claimed to have been beaten by the accused, but not a single injury, bruise or abrasion was found on his body. The Motorcar allegedly recovered in the case does not belong to the respondents. The appellant has made deliberate improvements in his statement before the Court. Though identification parade was conducted in the case, but neither the abudctee nor the police identified the accused to be the real culprits, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of the occurrence having taken place in the mode and manner as stated by the prosecution, the benefit of which must go to the accused. Though the S.H.O. Has stated that exchange of firing was made between the accused and the police party, but neither any empty was recovered from the spot nor anybody received even a single injury, which casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.
I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused through reliable evidence.
6. Furthermore it is by now settled law that after earning acquittal from the trial Court double presumption of innocence is acquired by an accused and the Court sitting in appeal against acquittal always remain slow in reversing the judgment of. Acquittal, unless it is found to be arbitrary, fanciful and capricious on the face of it As mentioned above, in the instant case no such infirmity has been found in the impugned judgment. The trial Court has acquitted the respondents after proper appraisal of evidence for which no exception can be taken.
' For the reasons mentioned above and deriving wisdom from the judgments of the apex Court in Muhammad Tasveer v.. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others (PLD 2009 SC 53) and Abdul Majeed v.
Mulazim Hussain and others (PLD 2007 SC 637) the impugned judgment of acquittal is maintained and the appeal in hand is dismissed in limine being without any substance.