ABDUL WARIS Versus AMJAD
KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.--- This Criminal Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.03.2017, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Shaheed Benazirabad in Direct Complaint No.09 of 2016, S.C. No: 324 of 2016, re: Abdul Waris v. Amjad and others, for the offences under sections 395, 337-L(2), 506/2, 149, 34 P.P.C. whereby the respondents/accused have been acquitted, extending them benefit of doubt.
2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant Abdul Waris, had filed Direct Complaint No. 09 of 2016, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Nawabshah, for offences under sections 395, 337-L(2), 506/2, 149, 34, P.P.C. on 13-04-2016, against accused/respondents Amjad and six others which was transferred to the learned Sessions Judge Shaheed Benazirabad as offence under section 395, P.P.C. was exclusively triable by learned Court of Sessions Judge, wherefrom it was transferred to the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Shaheed Benazirabad. After completing all the requirements, a formal charge was framed against the accused at Exh:2 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial at Exh:2/A to Exh:2/G. At the trial, the complainant Abdul Waris examined himself at Exh:3, who produced direct complaint at Exh:3/A; Witness Allah Obhayo Bhutto at Exh:4, who produced his statement recorded during P.E. at Exh:4/A; Witness Niaz Hussain Rind at Exh:5, who produced his statement recorded during P.E. at Ex.5-A; and then the learned counsel for complainant closed his side vide statement at Ex.6. The statements of accused under the provisions of section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded at Exhs. 07 to 13, wherein they refuting the allegations levelled against them by the complainant, pleaded their innocence and false implication. However, accused neither examined themselves on oath nor did they produce any witness in defence. At the conclusion of the trial and after hearing the parties, learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/ respondents Amjad and others, extending them benefit of doubt vide impugned judgment dated 30-03-2017 as discussed supra. Having felt aggrieved by the acquittal judgment complainant/ appellant has filed this appeal.
3. The learned counsel for appellant has mainly contended that learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence while passing the impugned judgment. He, therefore, prays that appeal may be allowed and the case may be remitted back to the learned Trial Court for decision afresh.
4. It is, inter alia, contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that neither the complainant remembered the name of doctor, who treated him nor produced admission and discharge slip; that parties are already tagged in civil as well as criminal litigation and such cases between the parties are pending before the competent Courts of law; that no incident as alleged has ever taken place. Learned counsel, therefore, prays that this criminal acquittal appeal may be dismissed.
5. The learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh has mainly contended that the learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence brought on record had come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused/respondents Amjad and others beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore extending them benefit of doubt, acquitted them of the charge; and, that the impugned acquittal judgment is based on the evidence brought on record, which suffers from no illegality or misreading or non-reading of evidence.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for accused/ respondents and learned Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh and have gone through the material brought on record.
7. From a perusal of the record it would be seen that the impugned acquittal judgment has been passed in subject Sessions Case instituted upon the complaint, but the appellant/complainant, without seeking special leave to appeal from such an order of acquittal, has filed this criminal acquittal appeal; the place of incident has not been mentioned either in the complaint or even in the depositions of the complainant and witnesses; all the accused/respondents belong to one and the same family; the complainant admitted in his deposition that all the accused are closely related to each other and are father and sons; there is admitted enmity between the parties over landed property; the complainant is one of the accused in Crime No.66 of 2015 lodged at Police Station Airport by the accused/respondent party; witness Allah Obhayo has stated that after 2/3 hours the complainant regained conscious at the hospital, but witness Niaz Muhammad has stated that after 4/5 hours the complainant regained conscious; Final Medicolegal Certificate of the complainant shows only the bruises marks on the person of the complainant; there is delay of more than eight months in lodgment of the complaint. Apart from the above admissions, material contradictions and discrepancies, rendering the prosecution case highly doubtful, there are many other discrepancies in the prosecution case, which need not to be discussed here just to save the space. I have seen the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, which is apt to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and the same suffering from no illegality or misreading or non-reading of the evidence does not call for any interference. Accordingly, this acquittal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 18-10-2018, whereby this appeal was dismissed.
SA/A-180/Sindh Appeal dismissed.