Haji LAL BUX vs ALTAF HUSSAIN and 4 others
This acquittal appeal challenged the judgment of the 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Khairpur, which acquitted the respondents in a criminal case involving allegations of assault and land disputes. The core legal question was whether the trial court's acquittal was justified given the complainant's refusal to testify, the significant delay in lodging the First Information Report (16 days), and the absence of eye-witness testimony. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, upholding the acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, noting that the complainant had resiled from his initial statement, refused to produce key witnesses, and failed to challenge the trial court's proceedings. The principle laid down is that where a complainant abandons the prosecution of their case, refuses to support the allegations in the First Information Report, and fails to produce witnesses, the trial court is justified in acquitting the accused, particularly when the prosecution fails to bring home the guilt of the accused and the respondents have endured a prolonged trial.
- Is an acquittal justified when the complainant refuses to support the prosecution's case and fails to produce witnesses?
- Does a 16-day delay in lodging an FIR negatively impact the prosecution's case?
- Can an appellate court interfere with an acquittal judgment where there is no evidence of misreading of evidence or illegality?
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' This acquittal appeal is directed against the impugned judgment passed by 1st Assistant Sessions Judge, Khairpur in Sessions Case No,122 of 1991 whereby the respondents Nos.1 to 6 are acquitted.
2. ' The facts in brief are that on 11-7-1991 complainant Lal Bux lodged first information report alleging therein that Dhani Parto and Ghulam Shabbir are his brothers. They all own 125 Jirabs of agricultural land in Deh Phat. The said land is in possession of his brothers Dhani Parto and Ghulam Shabbir. The complainant was being denied of his share over which the dispute between them was going on. On the day of incident he was available in his house alongwith his daughter Zarina, grand-daughter Ghulam Sakina when accused Altaf Hussain and Hussain Bux armed with hatchets, Illah Bux, Qadir Bux and Rahmatullah having clips in their hands intruded into his house.
3. His brother Ghulam Shabbir instigated others, whereupon accused Altaf Hussain caused hatchet blow on his head. Accused Hussain Bux also caused hatchet injuries on his face and the remaining accused caused Lathi blows to complainant who fell down on the ground. His daughter Zarina and grand-daughter Sakina raised cries which attracted Tasleem and other neighbours. The culprits on seeing them coming, decamped from the scene of offence.
4. ' The prosecution examined complainant, Dr. Asadullah, P.W. Muhukumuddin P.C. And H.C. Nazir Ahmed. The prosecution had given up P.W. Tasleem, Mst. Zarina and Mst. Sakina, S.I.P. Muhammad Daud was also examined.
5. ' The statement of accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein they have stated that the complainant and the P.Ws. Have not deposed against them. They pleaded that they were innocent and they may be acquitted.
6. ' The learned trial Court acquitted the accused on 29-10-1999, the said judgment is impugned herein.
7. ' Mr. Mumtaz Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, has contended that opportunity was not given to the complainant to examine his witnesses. The learned D.D.A. Has given up the witnesses without consultation with the complainant. It is stated that transfer application was moved but in spite of it the learned trial Court proceeded with the case and did not take into consideration the factum of moving of transfer application. It is contended that Mashir, Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer have supported the case of complainant and the learned trial Court has misread the evidence on record.
8. ' Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Korai, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that incident of this case had occurred on 11-7-1991 and the F.I.R. Of this case was lodged on 27-7-1991. It is argued that complainant was examined on 6-12-1997 by the learned trial Court wherein he has deposed as under:-- ' "The incident took place about 7 years back.
9. ' Note:-- (At this stage complainant is not ready to give further evidence in the present case.) xxx to Advocate for all accused.
10. Nil, though chance given."
11. ' This deposition was never challenged by the complainant. He himself refused to plead his case.
12. Complainant has not supported the contents of his F.I.R. He refused to depose against the respondents. The impugned judgment reveals that he spoke in an angry tone by saying that he would not like to bring his daughters in the Court. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. The respondents have faced the agony of trial for about nine years. The complainant had never pursued his case in the trial Court and the trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused.
13. ' Mr. Zawar Hussain Jaffri, learned Additional Advocate-General has supported the impugned judgment and stated that there was a dispute between the brothers over the share of agricultural land. The F.I.R. Was belated by about 16 days. The complainant himself has resiled from the prosecution case. No eye-witness of the incident has been examined. The complainant has never challenged any of the orders of the trial Court.
14. ' The record reveals that complainant was examined in Court. He refused to depose against the accused persons. The impugned judgment shows that he shouted in the Court by saying that he would not bring P.Ws. Tasleem, Mst. Zarina and Mst. Sakina in the Court. The process against the lady eye-witnesses was issued but they never cared to appear before the Court and give their evidence. The witnesses examined in the Court are not the eye-witnesses. So far ground of transfer application is concerned, that is not agitated in the acquittal appeal. The F.I.R. Was recorded after 16 days of the incident. The respondents have faced the agony of trial for nine years. This dispute appears to be between the real brothers over agricultural land. The impugned judgment is neither illegal nor there is misreading of evidence which could lead to miscarriage of justice. Reference can be had to the case of Yar Muhammad and others v. The State 1992 SCM R 96.
15. ' The acquittal 'appeal is meritless, hence dismissed in limine. The respondents are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.