Ehsan Ali vs Ahmed Ali and 2 others
The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Skardu, whereby the accused respondent was acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case arising out of FIR registered under Sections 337-A, 504, and 506(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the court was whether the acquittal of the respondent under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. was justified when prosecution witnesses failed to support the case and alleged eye-witnesses resiled from their previous statements. The court held that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned, based on a correct appreciation of material on record, and that further proceedings would be a futile exercise. The court laid down the principle that where prosecution evidence fails to substantiate the charges and witnesses turn hostile, an order of acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. is sustainable and warrants no interference by the appellate court.
- Whether an acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable when prosecution witnesses fail to support the case?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal if no material irregularity or illegality is pointed out?
- Whether further proceedings remain a futile exercise when eye-witnesses resile from their previous statements?
- Section 337-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 504, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
ALI BAIG, , C.J. The instant Criminal Appeal bearing No.02/2021 has been filed by the present appellant against the judgment/order dated 28-6-2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Skardu, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has acquitted the accused/ respondent from the charges levelled against him in case FIR No.06/2019 registered at Police Station Hussain Abad for offences under sections 337-A, 504, 506(ii), P.P.C.
2. The learned counsel, for the appellant submitted that the judgment/ order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is against the law and against the material available on record. The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the prosecution has successfully proved their case through reliable evidence but the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned judgment/order in a hasty manner and acquitted the accused/respondent under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. Lastly the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Judicial Magistrate despite recording evidence of the investigating officer passed the impugned judgment/order, hence, the judgment/ order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is liable to be set aside.
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have minutely gone through record available on file.
4. From perusal of record it appears that on complaint of the present appellant a criminal case bearing FIR No. 06/2019 was registered under sections 337-A, 504, 506-II, P.P.C. at Police Station Hussainabad against the present respondent/accused and after registration of the criminal case the concerned SHO started investigation and after completion of usual investigation submitted complete challan before the learned Judicial Magistrate Skardu. The learned Judicial Magistrate after taken cognizance in the matter framed charge against the respondent/accused, to which the respondent/accused had denied charges and claimed trial. The learned trial Court recorded statement of four witnesses including the complainant /present appellant.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that during proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate the accused/ respondent had filed an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal on the grounds detailed in the petition. The learned Judicial Magistrate after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has allowed the application and acquitted the accused/respondent under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. The PWs produced by the prosecution do not support the prosecution version and the prosecution has badly failed to prove its version against the present respondent/ accused as the alleged eye-witnesses have resiled from their previous statements recorded before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. The judgment/order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate is well reasoned and correct appreciation of material available on file and further proceedings in the matter will be futile exercise and wastage of precious time of the Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate warranting interference of this Court.
6. In view of above, this criminal appeal has no force and the same is dismissed in limine by upholding the impugned Judgment/order dated 28.06.2021 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Skardu. File.