Mst. Manzooran Begum vs Sultan Ahmad

James Joseph, J: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.10.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal, whereby Adnan Mahmood alias Shehzada, Sultan Ahmad and Abdul Ghani respondents have been acquitted from the charge in case FIR No. 112/1997 dated 04.05.1997, registered at Police Station Saddar Narowal in respect of offence under section 302 PPC.

2. In pursuance of order dated 16.10.2014, learned law officer on behalf of the complainant states that the complainant is unable to engage services of his counsel therefore, he shall argue on her behalf.

3. Learned law officer in support of the appeal contends that the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 30.10.2002 regarding the occurrence which took place on 04.05.1997 is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on the file. Further contends that there was ample evidence against the respondents No.1 & 2/accused on the file and the prosecution has successfully proved its case by producing consistent and confidence inspiring evidence against the respondents No.1 & 2; that the judgment passed by the learned trial court is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on the file. Lastly prayed for the acceptance of the appeal and convicting the respondent/accused in accordance with law.

4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the record.

5. Although the respondents were nominated in the FIR with specific role but during the course of successive investigations the respondents were found innocents and one Adnan Mehmood alias Shehzada son of the complainant i.e. Manzooran Bibi was found involved and was held responsible for committing the present occurrence. In this regard Shahbaz Ahmad SI/SHO appeared before the court as DW-1 and Pervaiz Ahmad Butt as DW-2 who unanimously stated that during the course of investigation the respondents were not found connected in any sense. They were put to the test of lengthy cross examination but nothing favourable could be extracted by the prosecution against the respondents. Further the results of investigation conducted by two different investigating officers were never challenged by the complainant at any higher forum or any private complaint was filed before the trial court.

6. Further the empty recovered from the spot was found to be wedded with pistol P-4 which belonged to Adnan Shehzad real son of the complainant who was found involved in the present occurrence.

7. Even otherwise the PWs produced by the prosecution have contradicted each other on material points and many discrepancies have been observed in their statements. Admittedly the trial was conducted against Adnan Mehmood alias Shezada, Sultan Ahmad and Abdul Ghani but the complainant opted to file appeal only against Sultan Ahmad and Abdul Ghani who after a regular trial enjoys double presumption of innocence and to dislodge that presumption very strong and convincing reasons are required and no such reasons are reflected from the record. In this respect we respectfully refer the case of "Haji Amanullah vs. Munir Ahmad and others (2010 SCM R 222) and the case of "Iftikhar Hussain and others vs. The State (2004 SCM R 1185)

8. In the light of above discussion, it is found that the prosecution evidence is stuffed with many discrepancies lacking confidence inspiring substantive evidence. Even otherwise a slightest doubt would favour the accused as he is the favourite child of law. Admittedly the ordinary scope of appeal against acquittal of the accused is considerable narrow and limited on the examination of the judgment of acquittal as a whole, credence should be accorded to the findings of the learned trial Court whereby the accused had been exonerated from the charge of commission of the crime. It is well settled law that once if judgment of acquittal is recorded, the accused earns doubt presumption of innocence, therefore, such judgment cannot be interfered with unless and until strong and exceptional circumstances exist, warranting interference by this Court but the instant appeal is lacking any such ground. In this regard reference may be made to the case of "IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN and others V. THE STATE" (2004 SCM R 1185), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as under:- "13. It is settled principle of criminal administration of justice that when an accused is acquitted of the charge, he enjoys doubt presumption of innocence in his favour and Courts seized with acquittal appeal under Section 417 Cr.P.C. Are obliged to be very careful in dislodging such presumption. Undoubtly, two views are always possible while appreciating the evidence available on record, therefore, for such reason and in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, it is always insisted that the Court should follow the recognized principles of interference in the acquittal judgment as held in the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another V. Mamaraz Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 11) that the appellate Court seized with the acquittal appeal under Section 417 Cr.P.C., is competent to interfere in the order challenged before it provided it has been established that the trial Court has disregarded material evidence or misread such evidence or received such evidence illegally...."

9. For what has been discussed above, We find no misreading and non-appraisal of evidence in its true perspective by the learned trial court. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, this appeal having no fore is dismissed.