STATE and another vs ABDUR RAHIM and another
This is an appeal filed by the State under section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge Ghizar pursuant to an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question involves determining whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused where the primary eye-witness disowned the first information report and examined prosecution witnesses failed to connect the accused with the crime. The court held that no material flaw, misreading, or non-reading of evidence existed in the trial court judgment, and emphasized that an acquittal multiplies the presumption of innocence. Furthermore, the court noted procedural defects in filing a joint appeal by the State and complainant. The appeal was dismissed as meritless, maintaining the acquittal order.
- Whether an appeal against acquittal can be filed jointly by the State and the complainant?
- What are the parameters to deal with an appeal against acquittal compared to an appeal against conviction?
- Can a trial court acquit an accused under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when key witnesses fail to connect the accused to the crime?
- Section 417, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 265-K, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 417(2-A), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---This is an appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. Filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge Ghizar.
2. The instant case was registered under sections 302/34/109 vide FIR No, 21/2013 at Police Station Yasin and after investigation the case was sent for trial, in the Court of learned Sessions Judge Ghizer.
3. The learned Sessions Judge Ghizer acquitted the respondent vide judgment dated 25-11-2015 by accepting application filed by the respondent under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Mainly on the ground that the FIR lodger who is real brother of deceased and also an eye-witness of the occurrence has disowned the FIR and nine important PWs have been examined, who failed to connect the accused with the crime. The learned trial Court further observed that 9 remaining PWs are formal witnesses and their evidence is of formal nature i,e, recovery of last worn clothes, recovery of blood-stained earth etc., which evidence is only of corroboratory in nature. The learned trial Court opined that further trial would be a futile exercise, and, acquitted the accused vide Judgment dated 25-11-2015, which is impugned before us.
4. The learned Dy.A.G when confronted, was unable to point out any non reading/mis-reading of evidence, which may pursued us to upset the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
Needless to mention here that there are different parameters to deal with an appeal against acquittal and an appeal against conviction. An accused is presumed innocent till adjudged guilty and this presumption of innocence is multiplied when he earns acquittal from a Court of competent jurisdiction.
5. There is another factor, which needs to be addressed is that this appeal has been filed by the State/complainant jointly, which is not permissible under law, as there exist two different provisions of law for filing of an appeal against acquittal by the State/complainant. The learned Dy. A.G. In a casual manner filed this appeal before this Court, without following the law. State if aggrieved from an order of acquittal may file an appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. And likewise complainant can file an appeal under section 417(2-A). The limitation for filing of an appeal by State/complainant is also at variance. We hope that the learned Dy. A.G, will be careful in future.
6. There is no material flaw in the judgment dated 25-11-2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge Ghizar, which is maintained and appeal filed by the State under section 417, Cr.P.C. Is dismissed being meritless.