ASADULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE and another
This acquittal appeal challenges the judgment dated 10-11-1992 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, Central, whereby respondent No. 2 was acquitted of charges under sections 307, 452, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question revolves around whether the trial court erred in appreciating the evidence and acquitting the respondent in a case involving an alleged house trespass, criminal intimidation, and attempt to murder arising from a landlord-tenant dispute. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court rightly acquitted the respondent, noting an unexplained and inordinate delay of over four months in filing the direct complaint without approaching higher authorities, lack of inspiring confidence in the testimony of interested witnesses, and the fact that the complaint was merely a counter-blast to eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. The key principle laid down is that where a criminal complaint is belatedly filed without satisfactory explanation and stems from an ulterior motive such as countering eviction proceedings, the resulting acquittal warrants no interference.
- Whether an inordinate delay in filing a direct complaint without approaching higher police authorities is fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Does a criminal complaint filed as a counter-blast to eviction proceedings inspire confidence for sustaining a conviction under sections 307, 452, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- When can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal passed by a trial court?
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. ' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---This Acquittal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10-11- 1992 of the then learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, Central, whereby respondent No,2 S.M. Amif was acquitted.
2. ' The case of appellant Asadullah Khan, in brief, is that his mother was the tenant of respondent No,2 in the premises bearing No,R.237 Block 15, Dastagir Colony, F.B-Area, Karachi. It is alleged that the respondent wanted to enhance rent and asked for vacant possession of said premises. On 30- 1-1990, he entered in the premises without permission and threatened to kill the appellant. He had a Revolver and aimed it upon him. The appellant, who is a blind man, raised cries, which, amongst others, attracted P.Ws. Naseem Ahmad Sehar and Javed Riasat, who saved him. On 12-6-1990, he filed a direct complaint. After preliminary enquiry it was brought on record and the process was issued against the respondent.
3. ' Charge was framed against the respondent under sections 307/452/506, P.P.C. At trial, the complainant examined himself and his nephew Javed Riasat.
4. ' The respondent in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr. P.0 . Has denied all the above allegations. He examined himself on Oath and also examined Abdul Karim as defence witness.
5. ' On conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent by the Judgment, which has been impugned in this appeal.
6. ' It is contended on behalf of the appellant that learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence as such, reached wrong conclusion. Learned counsel also argued that though the case of the appellant was established by testimony of the complainant and P.W. Javed Riasat, yet, the trial Court, without assigning cogent reasons, acquitted the respondent.
7. It is an admitted fact that the alleged incident took place on 30-1-1990 and the direct complaint was filed on 12-6-1990. Learned counsel for the appellant has tried to explain the delay by stating that on several occasions the appellant approached the concerned Police for registration of F.I.R., but no case was registered. Ultimately, he had no option but to file the direct complaint. Admittedly, during the above period neither he gave any application to the concerned S.H.O. Nor sent any application to the Higher Authorities in that regard. The delay was not satisfactorily explained.
8. On merits also the appellant has no case. He in his cross-examination stated that though the respondent was armed with a Revolver, but the latter did not use it. Had the respondent any intention to kill him, he could do so easily. The respondent in his deposition, stated that he had rented out the premises to the appellant, had filed eviction proceedings against him and got its possession through Court. The respondent is an officer and at the relevant time was serving in Grade-18 in United Bank Limited. His witness Abdul Karim deposed that he know the appellant since 1972 and the latter had also been his tenant and had filed similar type of complaint against him (Abdul Karim) which was dismissed. It appears that real cause of dispute, was the eviction proceedings, which the respondent had started against the appellant. The complaint in question seems to have been filed as a counter-blast of said proceedings. The evidence of the appellant and his witness does not inspire confidence. We are of the view that the respondent was rightly acquitted by trial Court.
9. ' On 17-4-1998 after hearing the arguments, we had dismissed the appeal and these are the reasons for the short order announced on above date.