Mola Dad vs Muhammad Idrees and Others

Balochistan High Court · 2022 · Before Hon'ble Justice Shaukat Ali Rakhshani

Appellant has brought before us the captioned appeal against acquittal of respondents No. 1 and 2 rendered by means of judgment dated 11.03.2021 (“impugned judgment”) authored by a learned Session Judge, Kharan (“Trial Court”) emanating from a case vide FIR No. 14 of 2020 registered within the precincts of Levies Station, Kharan (“LS Kharan”) under the offences punishable under section 324, 397 and 34 of Pakistan Penal Code (“PPC”).

2. Complainant Zahir Khan (PW-1) got registered the FIR ibid on the basis of an application (Ex.P/1-A), averring therein that on 22.01.2020, while he along with his brother Maula Dad and two laborers namely Saud and Suleman were collecting wild herb asafetida (Hing) at Siago Shurista Moaza Eri Kalag. Respondents No.1 and 2 along with absconding accused persons Elahi Baksh, Inayatullah, Muhammad Hassan Criminal Acquittal Appeal No .153 of 2021. 2 Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. and Musa with the intention to snatch away the said hing made indiscriminate firing from the top of the mountains whereafter Idrees (respondent No.1) from a close distance made fire upon his brother Maula Dad with Kalashnikov, whereof a bullet pierced on the chest of his brother, making an exit wound in the abdomen, whereafter they plundered 20 kgs of hing, worth of Rs.2,80000/-. After arrest of the respondents and necessary investigation, they were booked to face the consequences of their deeds before the Trial Court. After denial of the indictment, the prosecution produced as many as nine witnesses. On close of the prosecution side, the respondents No.1 and 2 refuted the allegations by pleading innocence and produced copy of FIR No. 13 of 2022 LS Kharan and order of Majlis-e-Shora and copy of order of Additional Qazi, Kharan dated 28.03.2016; both of the acquitted accused did not step into the witness box in their defense nor produced any defense witness. On conclusion of the trial respondents No.1 and 2 were found not guilty as such were acquitted of the charge through the impugned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant inter alia contended that the statements of eyewitnesses including the testimony of injured Maula Dad have been overlooked by the Trial Court, which has made the impugned judgment illegal, which calls for interference by this court. According to him, the findings drawn by the Trial Court are based upon improper Criminal Acquittal Appeal No .153 of 2021. 3 Only for viewing purpose. Contact office for certified copy. appraisal of the evidence, which has made the impugned judgment perverse, thus, merits to be set at naught.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2 inter alia contended that the FIR has been lodged with the delay, which give rise to the fact that the report was lodged with deliberation and consultation. He maintained that the story narrated by the so-called eyewitnesses is improbable, which does not coincide with the circumstances. He further added that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, which has made the entire case highly doubtful and the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents, while extending benefit of doubt to them.

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