MUHAMMAD URIS vs The STATE

ORDER

1. ' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---The appellant has assailed the judgment dated 22-05-2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Matiari in Direct Complaint/Sessions Case No.4 of 2012, whereby the respondents Nos.1 to 10 were acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt.

2. ' The case of the prosecution is that on 27-3-2009 complainant namely Muhammad Uris filed Direct Complaint against the respondents, alleging therein that he is Hari of Mumtaz Gahoti at his land situated at Deh Fatehpur and there was a dispute going on between his Zamindar and Ali Raza and others over agricultural land. On 17-9-2007, the complainant was available at his land where at about 5-00 p.m., respondents Zulfiqar, Ali Raza, Haji Sahelo and Lal Muhammad, all sons of Ghulam Umar, Santosh Kumar, Chandur and Mohan, sons of Jani Mal, Sodho son of Gul Muhammad and two unknown persons duly armed with deadly weapons came there, abused the complainant and told him that despite restraining he was working in the land so they would not spare him. By saying so, accused Zulfiqar made straight fire with his repeater gun upon the complainant with intention to kill him but he got missed it by placing himself on ground. Other accused also beaten him with kicks and fists. On hue and cries P.Ws. Imdad Ali and Allah Obhayo reached there and witnessed the incident: ' After preliminary inquiry, the said complaint was brought on record and after examining the complainant and witnesses namely Imdad and Allah Obhayo, the trial Court acquitted the accused/respondents.

3. ' Learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant has contended that the contradictions pointed out by the trial Court are minor in nature and does not give any cause for creating shadow of doubt upon the prosecution case, therefore, acquittal order passed by the trial Court is arbitrary and without considering the material placed on record.

4. ' It is settled principle of law that the accused in Criminal Acquittal Appeal earns double presumption of his innocence and until and unless strong reasons are brought on record that the trial Court has passed the judgment without considering the record and the said judgment is contrary to law than the said judgment could be interfered.

5. ' Considering the above proposition of law, I have gone through the evidence of complainant namely Muhammad Uris and P.Ws. Imdad and Allah Obhayo. Complainant was examined at Exh.4, he deposed that accused Zulfiqar was armed with .222 rifle while P.W. Imdad has said he was armed with repeater. He further stated that Mohan and Sodho were armed with lathi and hatchet but this version of complainant is not supported by P.W. Imdad, he has stated that Laloo, Chandur, Mohan, Sodho and Zain-ul-Abdin were armed with lathies and hatchets while complainant has not shown presence of accused Zain-ul-Abdin at the spot in his entire evidence. It is a case of prosecution in deposition of complainant that Zulfiqar fired straight shot upon him with intention to commit his Qatl-e-Amd but P.W. Imdad has not supported the complainant on this point. It is also the case of complainant that on cries 10/12 persons gathered at the wardat but both P.Ws. Imdad and Allah Obhayo have not said a single word if any villager had arrived at wardat.

6. ' It has also come on record that prior to lodging of this Direct Complaint, the complainant had recorded F.I.R. Against the respondents and after investigation said F.I.R. Was disposed of under 'B'

7. Class after approval of summary by learned Magistrate. The said order was assailed before this Court and was maintained. There-after, the Direct Complaint was filed.

8. ' For creating shadow of doubt, it is settled law that many circumstances are not required. If the accused is able to create a slightest shadow of doubt upon the prosecution story them its benefit must be given to the accused not as a matter of concession or grace but as a matter of right. In the instant case major contradictions are apparently. Appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses not only regarding the presence of some accused but also the role attributed to them. It is also an admitted fact on record that there existed enmity between the parties and independent corroboration to the prosecution version is essential requirement in case of admitted enmity between parties, which is lacking in this case. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that no case was made out for conviction of accused and by extending benefit of doubt, they were acquitted.

9. ' No any material has been brought on record for interference with the order of the learned trial Court by exercising powers under section 417(2), ' Cr . P.C . Consequently, this Criminal Acquittal Appeal stands dismissed in limine along with listed applications.