PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 261
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench Multan]
Present: Sadaqat Ali Khan, J.
versus
STATE, etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 739 of 2012, decided on 10.9.2024.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 420, 468, 471--Prevention of Corruption Act, (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Rapt Roznamcha Waqiati--Acquittal of--PW-2 admitted in his cross-examination that mutation was only entered and had not been sanctioned--Rapt Roznamcha Waqiati was not sent to handwriting expert for comparison of signatures--Appellant is second wife of son-in-law of his brother. He had not seen appellant while appearing before Patwari or Revenue Officer--Appellant had filed suit on the basis of disputed mutation before the Civil Court but said suit had been dismissed--An appeal was filed by appellant against dismissal of her suit which was accepted by the appellate Court and case was remanded to Civil Court but the suit was again dismissed--PW-2 does not know as to whether civil revision is pending before the High Court or not--No other person has been produced in support of the statement of PW-2--Civil suit regarding the disputed mutation is still pending in the civil Court--Involvement of the appellant is not free from doubt--She is acquitted of the charges--Appeal was accepted.
[Para 4, 6, 8 & 9] A, B, C, D, E, F, G
M/s. Sheikh Jamshaid Hayat, Rao Muhammad-Yasir Yamin and Ali Muhammad Dhol, Advocates for Appellant (on bail).
Mr. Waheed Rafique, DDPP with Ali Hassan CO/ACE, Lodhran.
M/s. Israr Hayat and Ch. Imran Saqi, Advocates for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 10.9.2024.
Judgment
Sadaqat Ali Khan, J.--Appellant (Noor Fatima alongwith her co-convict Zulfiqar Ali (since dead) has been tried by the trial Court in case FIR No. 14 dated 31.12.2005, offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 Police Station ACE, District Lodhran, and was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 12.10.2012 as under:
Noor Fatima (appellant)
U/S. 468, PPC r/w Section 5(2)47 PCA | Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 50,000/-and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. |
U/S 471, PPC r/w Section 5(2)47 PCA | Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 50,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. |
The sentences of appellant were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. Muhammad Akhtar PW-2 being complainant stated before the trial Court as under:-
“On 24.06.2004 accused Noor Fatima, Sajid Manzoor, Zulfiqar Ali all present in Court alongwith Allah Yar and Mian Mansoor with connivance of each other got sanctioned mutation No. 526 in respect of land measuring 200 kanals situated in Chak No. 91 from myself and from my daughter Saima Eram in the name of Noor Fatima fraudulently and fictitiously. When I came to know about sanctioning of this forged mutation, I moved an application before revenue officer and on this application decision was given by revenue officer whereby Mutation No. 526 was declared as forged and fictitious and mutation was also cancelled. Thereafter I filed another application before DDOR Lodhran and on that application DDOR passed judgment declaring Mutation No. 526 as forged and fictitious. Thereafter I moved written application Ex. PA before ACE, Bahawalpur, whereupon FIR was lodged. Neither I nor my daughter ever transferred the land to accused Noor Fatima nor made any agreement. Similarly we never got sanctioned Mutation No. 526. Accused persons now facing trial in order to deprive me and my daughter of land have committed fraud and forgery.”
4. Muhammad Akhtar PW-2 admitted in his cross-examination that mutation was only entered and had not been sanctioned, Rapt RoznamchaWaqiyati was allegedly signed by him as well as by other witnesses, stated in his volunteer portion that those signatures were neither in his hand nor in the hands of witnesses. He (Muhammad Akhtar PW2) admitted in his cross-examination that Rapt RoznamchaWaqiyati was not sent to handwriting expert for comparison of signatures. He admitted that he appeared before Tehsildar at the time of alleged mutation and told that he neither sold the property nor put any signatures on mutation. He admitted in his cross-examination that Noor Fatima (appellant) is second wife of son-in-law of his brother. He admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen Noor Fatima (appellant) while appearing before Patwari or Revenue Officer. Noor Fatima (appellant) was not present in the office of Tehsildar when he appeared before him and said that he had not entered into any agreement regarding sale of land in question, stated in volunteer portion that she was sitting in another room. He (Muhammad Akhtar PW-2) admitted in his cross-examination that Noor Fatima (appellant) had filed suit on the basis of disputed mutation before the Civil Court but said suit had been dismissed. He admitted in his cross-examination that an appeal was filed by Noor Fatima (appellant) against dismissal of her suit which was accepted by the appellate Court and case was remanded to Civil Court but the suit was again dismissed. He (Muhammad Akhtar PW-2) does not know as to whether civil revision is pending before the High Court or not. He does not remember that disputed land was transferred in his name by Sultan who is brother of husband of Noor Fatima (appellant). He (Muhammad Akhtar PW-2) stated in volunteer portion that he had purchased the land from so many land owners.
5. Naeem-ur-Rehman, Deputy DirectorPW-3 (I.O) stated in his cross-examination that Mutation No. 526 was perused by him during investigation upon which signatures of Muhammad Akhtar and witnesses were present, complainant did not deny his signatures upon Mutation No. 526 before him during investigation as well as inquiry.
6. No other person has been produced in support of the statement of Muhammad Akhtar PW-2 (complainant) including Revenue Officer who had cancelled the mutation.
7. Mansoor Khan had contracted marriage with Sadia daughter of Qasim brother of Muhammad AkhtarPW-2 (complainant), whereafterMansoor Khan in presence of his first wife contracted second marriage with Noor Fatima (appellant) then dispute was arisen between the parties due to second marriage of Mansoor Khan with Noor Fatima (appellant).
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that civil suit regarding the disputed mutation is still pending in the civil Court; that complainant has not produced any evidence to establish the allegation that appellant committed forgery regarding disputed mutation after giving bribe to any revenue official except his solitary statement, which is not free from doubt due to above discussed dispute of second marriage.
9. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that involvement of the appellant is not free from doubt. It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then he would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession but as of right.
10. For the foregoing reasons, instant criminal appeal filed by the appellant (Noor Fatima) is accepted, her convictions and sentences awarded by the trial Court through the impugned judgment are hereby set-aside. She is acquitted of the charges. She is present on bail, her surety stands discharged.
(K.Q.B.) Appeal accepted
0 Comments