MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs MUNIR AHMAD and 8 others
This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 8 by the Judicial Magistrate, who had been charged under sections 440, 447, and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly breaking into the complainant's property and stealing construction materials. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and whether the failure of the Investigating Officer to testify necessitated a remand of the case. The Lahore High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding that the acquittal was based on a sound appreciation of the evidence and suffered from no misreading or non-reading of the record. The Court held that the prosecution bears the burden of adducing all relevant evidence, and the failure to produce the Investigating Officer justifies an adverse presumption that the witness would not have supported the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal in limine, affirming that the trial court's decision was in accordance with the law.
- Does the failure of the prosecution to produce the Investigating Officer as a witness warrant the remand of a criminal case?
- Is an adverse presumption drawn against the prosecution when a material witness is withheld from the trial court?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment that is based on a proper appreciation of evidence?
- Section 440, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI, J.---Respondents Nos.1 to 8 were booked by the appellant in case F.I.R. No.168 dated 1-5-2005 registered under sections 440, 447 and 380, P.P.C. With Police Station Pir Mahal, District Toba Tek Singh who were tried by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kamalia, Camp at Pir Mahal, and were acquitted from the charges vide judgment dated 4-4-2012.
2. The charges against the respondents were that on 2-4-2005 at about 10-00 a.m. In the morning, they while armed with weapons came and broke the door of the `lhata' of the complainant and also tried to demolish the wall. They took away gurders, bricks, doors, windows and also took over the possession of the 'Ihata' which was allotted to the complainant of the case.
3. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence reached at the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to make out any case against the respondents so they all were acquitted therefrom.
4. The judgment handed down by, the learned trial Court has been examined and it is found that the same is based upon the proper appreciation of evidence led by the parties as such, it is not suffered from any misreading and non-reading of evidence. The Investigating Officer did not appear in the court and this fact has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant forcefully that the case is liable to be remanded for recording the statement of ' the Investigating Officer. This submission of learned counsel is untenable for the reason that the appellant had not made any effort before the learned trial Court for making request for summoning the investigating officer. It was the duty of the prosecution to adduce all the relevant evidence in the court but the same was not done and the witness was withheld so the presumption is that had the witness appeared in the court he may not support the prosecution. The judgment delivered by the learned trial Court in these circumstances is found in accordance with law and is thus liable to be maintained.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal in hand having no merits is dismissed in limine.