SHER VVALI and anothers vs The STATE and another
This criminal appeal was filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused-respondent, who was tried under Section 496-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in case F.I.R. No. 670 dated 27-9-2010 registered at Police Station Topi District Swabi, and acquitted by the trial court on 20-2-2012. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence and acquitting the accused where the alleged abductee denied the abduction and stated she went for a job. The Peshawar High Court held that the abductee's statement shattered the prosecution case, and the trial court rightly drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 due to the non-production of a material witness. The court affirmed that an acquitted person earns a double presumption of innocence, and dismissed the appeal in limine, finding no grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned trial court judgment.
- Whether an appellate court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal that enjoys a double presumption of innocence?
- Does the denial of abduction by the alleged abductee shatter the prosecution case?
- Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 for withholding a material witness in a criminal trial?
- Section 496-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Article 129(g), Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984
ORDER
' KHALID MAHMOOD, J.---The accused-respondent was tried in case F.I.R. No.670 dated 27-9-2010 registered at Police Station Topi District Swabi under section 496-A, P.P.C., found innocent and acquitted by the learned ASJ-II Swabi vide her order dated 20-2-2012. Hence this appeal against the acquittal by the complainant/appellant.
2. Counsel for the appellant argued that the accused-respondent has been directly charged in the F.I.R. For abduction of the abductee. Her Nikah was performed with one Shehreyar and there was sufficient evidence to connect the accused, but the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence so produced by the prosecution.
3. Arguments heard and file perused.
4. In abduction cases the abductee is always considered as a star witness of the prosecution case.
In the present case abductee after her abduction, she has taken altogether different stance, which has shattered the entire prosecution case. In her statement she had stated that she had gone to Rawalpindi in connection with her job and neither she was abducted by anyone nor anybody has committed Zina with her.
5. From the entire evidence it is crystal clear that neither she was induced nor enticed away by the accused. It is also pertinent to note that grandmother of the alleged abductee Mst. Shireena was not examined, hence the learned trial court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the prosecution as envisaged under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. It can easily be presumed that had Mst. Shireena been produced before, the Court, she would have given her statement, adversely affecting the prosecution case. The learned trial Court has correctly thrashed out the case of the prosecution in the light of evidence produced by the prosecution and has rightly acquitted the accused.
' It is also settled law that in case of acquittal the acquitted accused earns double presumption of innocence and also doubts in the prosecution case. Hence I see no ground to interfere in the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court, therefore, the appeal in hand is dismissed in limine.