MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus JAVED IQBAL
ORDER
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J .---Through this appeal the complainant-appellant has called in question the judgment dated 11.02.2014 handed down by the learned Magistrate Section-30, Shakargarh whereby respondents Nos.1 to 6 were acquitted of the charge in case FIR No.150/2009 under sections 337-A(ii), 337-L(2), 382, 148 and 149, P.P.C., Police Station Sadar Shakargarh.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned DPG, perused the available record and observed that although, as per story of prosecution narrated in FIR, the complainant obtained 20 kanals of land on lease from Mst. Balqees Akhtar for five years, sowed wheat crop upon there and on 13.4.2009, when the complainant/PW.1 after harvesting the same was packing into racks, in the meanwhile, respondents Nos.1 to 6 came over there and in presence of witnesses namely Muhammad Din and Tausif started beating him with their respective weapons and also took away 23 racks of wheat and his motorcycle also but during this event the above said witnesses who are real brother and real son of the complainant did not try to rescue him from assailants and remained stood aside at the place of occurrence which is against the natural conduct and this fact creates serious doubt qua their presence at the place of occurrence. Apart from this, I have also noticed major contradictions in between the statements of PWs. as PW. I stated that the prosecution witnesses attracted at the spot at noon while PW.2 (real son of the complainant) deposed that they have been present at the place of occurrence since morning. Moreover, according to the prosecution, on the fateful, the complainant harvested the wheat crop and packed the same in racks but while appearing before the learned trial Court, during cross-examination, he deposed that he was ploughing the land when the accused/private respondents extended beating to him and this fact itself negates his stance about harvesting any crop. PW.1 further stated that he cultivated the land for the first time after lease but PW.2 stated that it was 3rd wheat crop. Even, no weapon of offence was recovered from the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 6 during investigation and the recovery of wheat and motorcycle do connect them with the alleged crime as the same was recovered from police post Chammal and there is nothing on record about its existence at said police post and why it was brought at the police post and its entry was made in police record after 43 days of the occurrence.
3. For what has been discussed above, all the above facts create serious doubt qua the prosecution story and benefit of doubt how even slightest always goes in favour of the accused; hence, it cannot be said that application of mind was not made by the learned trial Court. Even otherwise, acquittal provides double presumption of innocence and once a legal right has accrued in favour of the accused persons, same cannot be withheld without any cogent and convincing reasons. In such a situation, I could not find out any mis-reading or non-reading of evidence, arbitrariness or perversity in the findings recorded in impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.
SA/M-9/L Appeal dismissed.