THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Acquittal Appeal No.34 of 2017
Appellant : Raeesuddin
through Mr. Rehmat Hussain, Advocate
Respondent : The State
through Mr. Saghir Abbasi, APG
Date of hearing : 11.5.2018
Date of Judgment : 11.5.2018
FOR HEARING OF MAIN CASE
JUDGMENT
Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J: Through this appeal, appellant/ complainant has assailed the legality and propriety of the Judgment dated 28.12.2016 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-XXII, Karachi (East) in Criminal Case No.2701/2015 re. State vs. Zubair Ahmed & others arises out of FIR No.195/2015 registered under Section 506(B)/34 PPC at PS Soldier Bazaar, Karachi, whereby the learned trial Court after full dressed trial acquitted the private respondents by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the private respondents.
2. Necessary facts of the case as per FIR are that complainant is running his driving school from 13 years and accused Mst. Ghazala was working as driving teacher with complainant’s institution but she left complainant on 01.02.2015 and started her own institution in same area and after some time Mst. Nazneen also left complainant’s institution and joined Mst. Ghazala’s institution and both accused persons used to make mockery every day with complainant. On 26.02.2015 Mst. Ghazala’s husband Zubair along with four police persons came at complainant’s driving school where Mst. Ghazala, Mst. Nazneen and Abdul Raheem were present on the spot and accused Zubair started to beat him and dragged him into police vehicle and complainant’s friend saved him from accused persons.
3. It appears from the record that charge against accused was framed on 31.10.2015 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It also appears from the record that at the trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 complainant Raeesuddin as Ex-3 who produced certified copy of court order on 22-A. CrPC application as Ex-3/A, FIR as Ex-3/B, Memo of Inspection as Ex-3/C. PW-2 Muhammad Irfan as Ex-4 who produced nothing. PW Muhammad Saleem as Ex-5; PW-4 SI Mian Khan who produced 155 CrPC as Ex-A/07 and medical report as Ex-07/B. Prosecution gave up PW Mian Das as Ex-8. IO Sarfaraz Ali as Ex-9 who produced arrival entry of complainant at police station as Ex-9/A and Roznamcha entry as Ex-9/B and endorsed memo of site inspection at Ex-3/C, endorsed entry of complainant as Ex-7/A and endorsed entry as Ex-7/B and produced compromise paper as Ex-9/D. These witnesses were cross-examined by the counsel for private respondents. Learned Prosecutor closed prosecution side at Ex-10.
5. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 342 CrPC at Ex.11 to 14, wherein they have denied the allegation, claimed innocence and prayed for justice. However, they did not examine themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defence.
6. Learned trial Court after appraisal of evidence acquitted the private respondents. Hence this appeal.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel for appellant that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is perverse and the reasons are artificial, vis-à-vis the evidence on record that the grounds on which the trial Court proceeded to acquit respondents are not supportable from document and evidence on record; he further submitted that the respondents have been directly charged with regard to maltreatment to the complainant and the discrepancies in the statement of witnesses are not so material on the basis of which respondents could be acquitted; he further contended that the learned trial Court has based its finding of acquittal merely on the basis of minor contradictions on non-vital points in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that the prosecution evidence has not been properly appreciated. Therefore, learned counsel for appellant has prayed that the impugned order may be set-aside and private respondents may be convicted.
8. It appears from the record that at the time of admission of this appeal, only notice was issued to APG to assist this Court and if found necessary, then notices would be issued to the private respondents.
9. Learned APG has supported the impugned judgment by arguing that the impugned judgment is perfect in law and on facts. He further submits that the alleged incident of maltreatment and issuance of murderous threats was issued to the complainant on 26.02.2015, whereas FIR was lodged on 08.7.2015 after the delay of about 05 months, for which no explanation has been furnished by the complainant party, as such, on this ground alone, false implication of the private respondents in the FIR with due deliberation and consultation could not be ruled out. He further submits that there is no convincing and reliable evidence on record to show that the private respondents have maltreated or issued murderous threats to the complainant party. He further submits that on perusal of record, it appears that there is business rivalry in between the parties, as the both lady private respondents were employee of the complainant as driving teacher and when they started their own driving school in the same street, the appellant was annoyed.
10. I heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the private respondents for the reasons that the alleged incident as narrated in FIR was occurred on 26.02.2015, whereas FIR of the said incident was registered on 08.7.2015 after the delay of about 05 months for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished. During the course of arguments, I have specifically asked the question from the counsel for the appellant with regard to delay in lodging of FIR, but he did not reply satisfactorily. It appears from the record that the accused persons namely Mst. Ghazala and Mst. Nazneen were employee of the complainant as driving teacher, but when both accused left complainant’s school of driving and started their own driving school in the same street, due to such reasons there arose competition in respect of business, hence due to this reason, perhaps this false FIR has been lodged against the private respondents. I have perused the evidence of complainant with the able assistance of the parties’ counsel. Complainant in his evidence admits that he did not receive any injury during the incident. Moreover, entire prosecution evidence is silent in respect of weapon. I have also gone through the evidence of other witnesses available on record, but did not find weighty enough to connect the private respondents in this case. During the course of arguments, when all the infirmities and contradictions in the case of prosecution were confronted to the counsel for the appellant for its reply, he was not able to controvert the same.
11. Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the private respondents. Consequently, this Criminal Acquittal Appeal is found meritless and the same is dismissed.
asim/pa