INAYATULLAH Versus STATE

The present appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 5-6-1984, passed by the Assistant Commissioner/S.D.M., Sialkot, whereby respondents Nos.l to 6 were acquitted of the charge under section 452/448/506/148/149, P.P.C. read with Article 13/14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979).

2. The respondents stated above, were tried in pursuance to the private complaint by one Inayatullah, who had filed the P.S.LA. No.43 of 1985, against the acquittal order, stated above, which was duly allowed vide order dated 15-3-1986, hence converted into the present appeal.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case as detailed in the complaint are that the respondents had formed an unlawful assembly, entered in the appellant's house, broken the lock and taken away the household articles and as the police had refused to register the case, the complainant had moved the High Court for a direction to that effect but the petition for the same was disposed of with the direction that he can file a private complaint.

4. The complainant and two other witnesses, namely, Riasat Ali and Muhammad Sharif, were produced in support of the complaint. The learned trial Court had dismissed the complaint and ordered the acquittal of the respondents as stated above after holding that old enmity and litigation exist between the parties and that the complaint has been established to be false and frivolous.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the impugned order of acquittal of the respondents does not call for any interference as it is neither perverse nor is in violation of any established principle of appraisal of evidence. Further, submitted that as no error of jurisdiction or any material irregularity in the proceedings before the trial Court are made out, in any I manner, and as the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court to order the i acquittal of the respondents is based on cogent reasons, therefore, the present appeal merits to be dismissed.

6. The submissions made on behalf of the respondents are duly borne out from the record, and in addition thereto, no interference with the order of acquittal is called for even if a different view is possible on the basis of the evidence on the record. In this respect reliance is placed on Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others P L D 1985 SC 11, wherein it has 18 been held that no interference with an order of acquittal will take place even if a different reasonable conclusion is possible on the basis of the evidence on the record and that the finding of acquittal can only be interfered with if it is found wholly artificial, shocking and ridiculous, or it is such a conclusion which no reasonable person would conceivably arrive at.

In pursuance to the above discussion, the present Criminal Appeal, IC being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.

N.H.Q./1-84/L Appeal dismissed.