SHAHIDA PARVEEN Versus State
ORDER
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.--- Through the instant criminal acquittal appeal, appellant Shahida Parveen has agitated order dated 19.09.2014, passed by learned VI Judicial Magistrate, Karachi East, whereby respondent Khursheed Ali was acquitted under section 245(i), Cr.P.C.
2. The necessary facts spelt out from the instant appeal are that complainant Shahida Parveen was employee in PIA and is second wife of respondent Syed Khursheed Ali but no issue was born from said wedlock. It is alleged that respondent used to maltreat her and intended to dispossess her from said flat against which she moved complaint to SHO Gulistan-e- Johar alleging that respondent neither visited her for weeks nor paid maintenance. On 07.06.2013, at 10 p.m, respondent came at her flat and started beating her and also strangulated her neck. Respondent also taken out his pistol and issued threats that if she will not vacate said flat, he will kill her and then went away, hence the instant FIR.
3. After usual investigation, respondent was challaned to face his trial. Formal charge was framed as Ex.2 to which respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and such plea was recorded as Ex.2-A. To substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.W-1 Ghazanfar Ali as Ex.3, P.W-2 Muhammad Urs first investigation officer at Ex.4, who produced memo of inspection as Ex.4-A PW 3 complainant Shahida Parveen as Ex.5, who produced application dated 08.06.2013, and FIR as Ex.5-A and Ex.5-B respectively, PW-4 Zahoor Ahmed as Ex-6 and PW-5 Rao Zulfiqar as Ex.7. Learned counsel for the complainant closed prosecution side.
4. Statement of accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. as Ex:9 wherein he denied the allegations leveled by prosecution and claimed to be innocent and prayed for justice. However, accused did not examine himself on oath nor lead any evidence in his defence. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for parties, learned VI J.M, Karachi East acquitted the accused under section 245(1), Cr.P.C. vide judgment dated 19.09.2014.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that learned Trial Court has not considered the evidence adduced by the prosecution that respondent had maltreated and also issued threats to kill the complainant who was his second wife, while P.W. Zahoor Ahmed had also supported the prosecution case. He further contended that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and respondent may be convicted for the alleged offence.
6. Learned counsel for accused/respondent No.2 contended that prosecution has examined five witnesses in support of its case but has failed to produce any eye-witness in support of the allegation leveled by the complainant and even P.W. Zahoor Ahmed in his evidence has deposed that complainant Shahida Parveen had informed him that her husband had issued threats to kill her. He further contended that learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted respondent No.2. He further contended that respondent was married with the complainant but thereafter he divorced her and she wants to usurp the flat in which she is residing forcibly.
7. Learned A.P.G also supported the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and contended that learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused.
8. Perusal of the material available on record and consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties emanate that complainant was second wife of the respondent and subsequently their marriage tie was dissolved. From bare perusal of the contents of the FIR it is crystal clear that the complainant had stated that accused was not visiting her for weeks together and in this context, on 15.03.2013, she moved an application to the area police that neither accused was visiting her nor paying any maintenance. Complainant further alleged that during the night of 07.06.2013 at 10.00 p.m, respondent came at her flat and maltreated and strangulated her and also issued threats to kill by pointing pistol if she would not vacate the said flat. It is worthwhile to mention that neither she made any hue and cry to attract neighbours to rescue her nor informed any person about the alleged incident. Moreover, complainant lodged FIR on 10.06.2013 at 2000 hours, without furnishing explanation for 3 days delay caused in the lodgment of FIR nor such explanation was given in her statement recorded before the trial Court. Complainant also failed to produce any medical certificate to corroborate the allegations of maltreatment and strangulation. On other hand, accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., had vehemently denied the alleged offence and claimed to be innocent and prayed for justice.
9. Indeed, complainant has failed to adduce any trustworthy ocular evidence as well as medical evidence to prove the allegations leveled by her against the accused regarding the maltreatment, strangulation and issuance of threats. Undoubtedly, the alleged incident was unwitnessed which allegedly occurred in a thickly populated area as such her allegations remained unproved and prosecution has failed to bring the guilt of accused at home. I am clear in my mind that charge against respondent was wholly groundless and no possibility existed of his conviction and even one substantial doubt is enough to acquit the accused. Consequently, in absence of any cogent iota of evidence, the statement of respondent carries sufficient reasons to believe that he is innocent and had not committed the alleged offence.
10. It is well settled that accused after acquittal has double presumption of innocence to his credit and in absence of perversity of reasoning in the order of trial Court same could not be interfered with. In case of Rashid Ahmed v. Muhammad Nawaz (2006 SCMR 1152), the honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
"It to be noted that in the cases where acquittal has been recorded, the respondent persons earn presumption of double innocence, therefore, the Courts are very slow to interfere in such order unless it is shown that the judgment is perverse or the Court while recording acquittal order had not taken into consideration important incriminating evidence etc."
In case of Muhammad Ishaque v. Sardar Ali (2004 PCr.LJ 861), it was observed that evidence in case was highly doubtful regarding involvement of respondent in commission of crime. Trial Court had advanced valid and cogent reasons for passing a finding of acquittal in favour of accused and no legal justification existed to disturb said finding. Acquittal of respondent did not suffer from any illegality so as to call for interference with judgment of Trial Court.
11. Considering the above facts, circumstances and identical case law, appellant has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the learned Trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2014, which does not call for any interference, hence maintained. Consequently, the instant acquittal appeal stands dismissed.
HBT/S-40/Sindh Appeal dismissed.