-S. 417(2-A)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149--Appeal against acquittal--Cross-version--Two version case--It is beyond comprehension that if injured received fire arm injury at his leg, how is it possible that there was no corresponding hole on his cloths-

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 206 (DB)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 417(2-A)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149--Appeal against acquittal--Cross-version--Two version case--It is beyond comprehension that if injured received fire arm injury at his leg, how is it possible that there was no corresponding hole on his cloths--Moreover, according to Medical Officer  injured was advised/referred to Services Hospital, Lahore for surgical notes but there is no explanation that why he did not appear before Surgeon, if he had actually received fire arm injury--Although injured claimed that he received medical facility from CMH, Lahore but in this regard he has failed to bring on record any iota of material to strengthen his stance--Another aspect of matter is that ASI (PW-2), who was present at spot for purpose of producing record of cases pending between parties before Court deposed that he presented his written statement before Investing Officer, according to which he heard only a single fire and no other fire shot was made thereafter--Admittedly, as a result of first fire shot, was done to death, therefore, claim of injured of sustaining fire arm injury during occurrence appears to be nothing but a bald assertion--It is a case of two versions, where both parties are concealing some true facts from Court and none of them came on surface with clean hands--There are certain contradictions in statements of witnesses of ocular account duly highlighted by trial Court--By trial Court while acquitting respondents No. 1 to 9 and feel no need to intervene with same--Even otherwise, this is an appeal against acquittal wherein Apex Courts have been found to be reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal primarily for reasons that after acquittal, an accused earns double presumption of innocence, which can only be repelled if order/judgment impugned appears to be perverse, arbitrary, capricious or patently illegal--Judgment impugned herein does not fall under any of said parameters and does not warrant interference by High Court--Appeal dismissed.

                                                                            [Pp. 209] A, B, C & D

M/s. Hamza Hassan and Amir Javed Bhatti, Advocates for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 3.11.2020.

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 206 (DB)
Present: Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi and Asjad Javaid Ghural, JJ.
MUHAMMAD BASHIR--Appellant
versus
NASEEM ULLAH and 9 others--Respondents.
Crl. A. No. 1002 of 2016, decided on 3.11.2020.

Order

Through this appeal under Section 417(2-A) the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, appellant Muhammad Bashir has challenged the vires of judgment dated 29.03.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala whereby respondents Nos. 1
to 9 were acquitted of the charge in cross-version case registered under Sections 302, 324, 148 & 149, PPC arising out of case FIR No. 226, dated 06.03.2012, in respect of offences under Sections 302, 148 & 149, PPC, registered at Police Station Feorzewala.

2. Brief facts of the case as contained in the cross-version application (Ex.PA) moved by the appellant are that he purchased land measuring 38-acres in village Nat and Sri Rampura Villages regarding which there was civil litigation between land grabbers i.e. Cheema group, Bath group and Rana Fasih group, who tried many a time to forcibly occupy the said land, however the said land had subsequently been attached under Section 145, Cr.P.C. On 06.03.2012 at 09:30 a.m. he along with Umair Asif, Muhammad Hanif and Arslan Naeem reached Ferozwala Kethcary to attend the Court of Mian Muhammad Anwar, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala and when they came out of the Courtroom and reached near chambers of their Advocate, all of a sudden accused/respondents Naseem Ullah, Amer Farooq, Muhammad Anwar, Shahid Cheema, Badsha, Muhammad Hussain, Fazal Ellahi, Arif, Bashir, Zafar, Allah Ditta encircled and started beating them. Arslan succeeded to make his escape good. Abdul Ghafoor accused picked wallet of the complainant containing documents, ID cards and cash of Rs:20,000/-, Anwar snatched his RADO wrist-watch along with other documents. In the meanwhile, accused Naseem Ullah made a straight fire shot at the complainant, which hit on his right thigh and he fell down. The accused supposing that the complainant had died, made fire at his servant in order to counter the case. The complainant along with Umair Asif and Muhammad Hanif went into the chamber of his counsel and locked the door inside. He made a call at Rescue-15 police emergency. The police reached there and rescued them. Thereafter, at 11:00 a.m. the complainant was shifted to Tehsil Headquarters Hospital, Muridke from where he was referred to Services Hospital, Lahore. Hence, this cross-version.

3. After completion of investigation, challan of cross version was submitted in the Court for trial, Respondents No. 1 to 9 were charge sheeted to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution produced sixteen witnesses along with reports of Chemical Examiner and of the Serologist (Ex.PP & Ex.PQ) in order to substantiate the charge against the said respondents. Thereafter, the said respondents were examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. in which they denied the allegations leveled against them and professed their innocence. They neither opted to produce evidence in their defence nor appeared under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. on oath. Learned trial Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, acquitted Respondents No. 1 to 9. Hence, this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the record.

5. Muhammad Bashir, (PW-2) complainant/injured while appearing in the witness box categorically deposed that respondent Naseem Ullah made a fire shot, which landed on the lower part of his leg. Dr. Abid Abbas (PW-15), who examined the injured, during his cross-examination, deposed that he did not find any corresponding hole on the cloths of injured. It is beyond comprehension that if the injured received fire arm injury at his leg, how is it possible that there was no corresponding hole on his cloths. Moreover, according to the Medical Officer (PW-15), the injured was advised/referred to Services Hospital, Lahore for surgical notes but there is no explanation that why he did not appear before the Surgeon, if he had actually received fire arm injury. Although the injured claimed that he received medical facility from the CMH, Lahore but in this regard he has failed to bring on record any iota of material to strengthen his stance.

6. Another aspect of the matter is that Muhammad Asghar, ASI (PW-2), who was present at the spot for the purpose of producing record of cases pending between the parties before the Court deposed that he presented his written statement Ex.DB before the Investing Officer, according to which he heard only a single fire and no other fire shot was made thereafter. Admittedly, as a result of first fire shot, Ghulam Murtaza was done to death, therefore, the claim of the injured of sustaining fire arm injury during the occurrence appears to be nothing but a bald assertion.

7. It is a case of two versions, where both the parties are concealing some true facts from the Court and none of them came on surface with clean hands. There are certain contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of ocular account duly highlighted by the learned trial Court. We are fully convinced with the reasons rendered by the trial Court while acquitting Respondents No. 1 to 9 and feel no need to intervene with the same.

8. Even otherwise, this is an appeal against acquittal wherein the Apex Courts have been found to be reluctant to interfere with an order of acquittal primarily for the reasons that after acquittal, an accused earns double presumption of innocence, which can only be repelled if the order/judgment impugned appears to be perverse, arbitrary, capricious or patently illegal. The judgment impugned herein does not fall under any of the said parameters and does not warrant interference by this Court.

In view of what has been discussed above, the appeal in hand is without any merit, the same stands dismissed in limine.

(A.A.K.)          Appeal dismissed