AHMAD HAYAT vs MUHAMMAD SHER and others
This criminal appeal arose from the acquittal of respondents in a case involving allegations of damaging an irrigation channel, registered under sections 430, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established that the accused intentionally damaged the channel and whether the channel in question was indeed used for irrigation purposes by the complainant party. The Trial Court had previously acquitted the respondents, citing contradictions in witness testimonies and a failure to prove the channel's status as an irrigation source. Upon review, the High Court examined the record and determined that the damage to the embankment of the natural rainy water channel was caused by rains rather than the actions of the accused. Furthermore, the court found no evidence substantiating the claim that the channel served as an irrigation source for the complainant. Consequently, the High Court upheld the acquittal, affirming that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required to sustain a conviction.
- Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving that an irrigation channel was intentionally damaged by the accused?
- Can an acquittal be upheld when the evidence suggests natural causes for the alleged damage rather than human intervention?
- Is a conviction sustainable under section 430 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the status of the channel as an irrigation source is not established?
- Section 430, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
'Criminal case F.I.R. No,150, dated 12-10-1993 under sections 430/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Ganjial, Distrcit Khushab against Muhammad Sher and others, respondents herein.
The allegations against the accused was that they had damaged the irrigation channel, which was used by the complainant party for irrigating their lands.
2. The Trial. Court disbelieved the evidence led at trial on the ground that there were contradictions in the statements of witnesses and that it was nowhere proved that the water channel was used as irrigation channel by the complainant party for their lands.
3.The complainant had originally filed appeal before Sessions Judge Khushab, which was disposed of on account of lack of jurisdiction. The complainant-appellant ubsequently filed under consideration appeal4. Learned counsel for the parties in which notice was issued to the respondents by order dated 20-3-1995.
4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard today.
5. The record reveals that the embankment of a natural rainy water channel was broken due to rains. There is no evidence which would warrant the view that the channel was damaged by the accused. The conclusion drawn by the Trial Court in this regard has been found to be correct. It was allo not established on the record that the rainy nullah was used as irrigationchannel by the complainant party. The accused respondents were rightly acquitted by the Trial Court.
6. Dismissed.