Abdul Wahab S/O Roz Muhammad vs Bismillah Jan And Others

Balochistan High Court · 2023 · Before Hon'ble Justice Gul Hassan Tareen

This criminal acquittal appeal under section 417 the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (‘Cr.P .C’), seeks setting aside of judgment dated 30 March, 2023, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Zhob (‘Trial Court’) whereby, respondent Nos. 1 to 7 (‘respondents’) were acquitted from the charge in case F.I.R No. 22 dated 31 October, 2020, registered under sections 324, 147, 148 and 149, the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (‘P .P .C’).

2. According to the FIR, on 31 October, 2020 at 12:30 a.m., complainant alongwith Habib ur Rehman, Sher Muhammad , Shezad Khan, Abdul Ghafoor, Bismillah Khan and Khudai Dad were proceeding towards their land situated at Shingrezai Kori Wasta Y asinzai, when in the meanwhile, the respondents alongwith Mir Zaman and Nawab Khan armed with Kalashnikoves and Pistols came and asked them ‘not to move forward otherwise they would be murdered’. When they asked them reason, the accused Mir Zaman, Sher Zaman and Bismillah started firing at them due to which Habib- ur-Rehman sustained a bullet injury and he was grievously injured and Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 146 of 2023 2 Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. all accused bolted away from the incident. On such report, a formal FIR was lodged and investigation of the case was entrusted to Naib Tehsildar, Sherani, who after formal investigation, submitted his crime report before the Trial Court.

3. On 26 March, 2021, a formal charge was framed against the respondents to which they pleaded ‘not guilty’ and claimed trial. The prosecution produced eight witnesses. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, the Trial Court examined respondents under section 342, the Cr.P .C,wherein they did not opt to make statement on oath nor lead evidence in their defense. On termination of trial, the respondents were not held guilty and, therefore, acquitted from the charge.

4. We have heard Mr. Asmatullah Mandokhail, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and have gone through the record of the case.

5. The prosecution failed to prove its case against the respondents beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. There are material contradictions in the statements of PW-1, PW-2 and the PW-3, whereas the PW-4 was declared hostile and the Investigating Officer of the case altogether mentioned a different story regarding the manner in which the alleged incident occurred. The PW-1 is complainant of the case and denied enmity of landed properties between the parties but during cross-examination, he admitted the disputed lands are in usufructuary possession of the respondents since their forefathers (Question No.5). He also admitted that the human strength of their family is more powerful than the accused side, whereas the PW-2 and PW-3 in their cross-examination completely Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 146 of 2023 3 Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. contradicted the statement of PW-1 (Question Nos.6 and 7, PW-2) and (Question Nos. 1 and 2, PW-3).

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…