IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.

Criminal Appeal No._________ / 2022

*****

Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ramzan caste Bhatti, Resident of Wapda Town
Block-F/2, Wapda Co-operative housing society, Wapda Town, Lahore.

…..Appellant
Versus
1- Abdul Ghafoor son of Lal Din caste Dogar, Resident of Mauza Khamba, Police station
Satukatla, Lahore.
2- Zubair Ali son of Lal Din caste Dogar, Resident of Mauza Khamba, Police station
Satukatla, Lahore.
3- The State.
…..Respondents
*****
FIR No: 254/04
Date of FIR: 27.04.2004
Offences u/s: 337/A1,A2,L2,F6,353,186 PPC
332,148,149,379,411 PPC
Police Station: Satukatla, Lahore.
*****
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 417-2(A) CR.P.C 1898 AGAINST THE
IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT DATED 03-03-2022, WHEREBY LEARNED
TRIAL COURT ACQUITTED THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1 & 2

It is respectfully submitted that:

1- That the aforementioned addresses of the parties are sufficient and correct to

the best of Appellant’s knowledge for the service of summons / notices which

may be issued by this Honorable Court from time to time.

2- That in order to assist this Hon. Court in making a fair, informed and impartial

assessment of the instant matter, it is essential to furnish information regarding

the background of the case by presenting the contents of FIR;

“The complainant is the employee of Wapda Town and

performing the duties of security incharge. Today on 27-04-2004 at about

01:30 pm I along with Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ramzan,

 Liaqat Ali son of Jalal Din, Azhar Mehmood, Ashiq Ali, Muhammad Akbar

security guards with employees of L.D.A Rehan Akbar son of Muhammad

Akbar (Estate Officer), Muhammad Younas Dar (Building Inspector) with

other LDA staff, reached at Phase-ii, commercial area, Wapda Town Lahore,

for demolishing the encroachments as per orders of High Officals. Being

within the limits of law, we started to demolish the unauthorized building

constructed by Abdul Ghafoor alias Mithu, Shuban Ali, Zubair Ali sons of Lal

Din caste Dogar residents of Mauza Khamba, Lahore. Suddenly Abdul

Ghafoor alias Mithu armed with Iron Rod, Shauban Ali armed with pistol,

Zubair armed with Sota, Mukhtar Ahmad alias Litan-wala armed with iron rod

and 4/5 others armed with Danda & Sota reached at the spot and started to use

criminal force to deter the public servants from discharging of their duties.

Abdul Ghafoor with iron rod in his hand committed attack on Muhammad

Aslam and caused him serious injury, Shauban committed to hit with back of

his pistol (Butt) on Rehan’s head, Zubair armed with sota committed attack on

Liaqat and caused him serious injuries, Mukhtar Dogar and other co-accused

persons with their respective weapons committed attack on L.D.A officials &

security guards and caused them injuries. Meanwhile, Abdul Ghafoor alias

Mithu and Shauban Ali snatched rifle 12-calibar, licensed No.10975 along

with 25 live cartridges from security guard Muhammad Aslam and decamped

from the place of occurrence. Medical examinations of injured persons are

attached. Accused persons may please be dealt in accordance with law”.

3- That after registration of F.I.R No.254/04 dated 27-04-2004, investigation of

the case was conducted by concerned investigation officer and he found

respondents No. 1 & 2 fully involved and guilty. He prepared report under

section 173 Cr.p.c and placed the names of the accused persons / respondents

No. 1 & 2 in columns No. 3 & 4.

 4- That the Challan was submitted and after fulfillment of all the formalities

respondents No. 1 & 2 were charged by the learned trail court on 30-03-2006

and 06-04-2006, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5- That after framing of charge, the prosecution adduced its evidence and

produced as many as twelve witnesses. Thereafter, statements of respondents

No. 1 & 2 under section 342 Cr.P.C were recorded. The Learned trial court,

after finding the prosecution evidence insufficient and deficient with the

observation that concerned doctors who conducted medical treatment to

injured persons were not named in list of witnesses neither they were applied

to be summoned, acquitted the respondents No. 1 & 2 vide impugned

judgment dated 03-03-2022. Copy of impugned judgment dated 03-03-2022 is

annexed.

6- That the appellant is quite aggrieved with the decision of the Lr. Trial Court,

which ignored the cogent and inspiring evidence surfacing on the record and

through the appeal in hand, the appellant seeks to assail the impugned

judgment dated 03-03-2022 passed by learned trial court whereby respondents

No. 1 & 2 were acquitted. The appellant seeks setting aside of the impugned

judgment dated 03-03-2022 passed by Lr. Trial Court, inter-alia, on the

following grounds:

GROUNDS

i- That the impugned judgment dated 03-03-2022 passed by the Lr. Trial Court is

the result of misreading and non-reading of the material available on record.

Though, the name of concerned doctor who conducted the medical

examination of the injured persons was not named in list of witnesses, but

application for summoning of concerned doctor was filed on 29-07-2011,

which was accepted vide order dated 08-10-2011. Resultantly, Dr. Abdul

Jabber CMO Jinnah Hospital, Lahore appeared in witness box as CW-1 and

supported the version of prosecution.

ii- That the learned trial court has not taken into consideration the medical

evidence which clearly shows extreme cruelty and disregard for human life. It

is noteworthy here that medical evidence of CW-1 Dr. Abdul Jabber fully

supports the ocular account. Multiple injuries were found on vital parts of

injured persons.

iii- That the learned trial court has not given importance and due weight to the

straight forward and natural account given by the prosecution witnesses, whose

account was free from falsehood or exaggeration. The first information report

was contemporaneously lodged excluding all the possibilities of couching and

torturing.

iv- That the prosecution proved its case beyond shadow of doubt against the

respondents No. 1 & 2 by producing independent, trustworthy and credible

ocular account duly corroborated by medical evidence. Hence, keeping in view

the solid, sound and cogent as well as unimpeachable evidence of the

complainant side, there was no occasion to acquit the respondents No. 1 & 2,

rather they were entitled to be convicted.

v- That while passing the impugned judgment dated 03-03-2022, the learned trial

court failed in taking into account the fact that there was no reason for false

implication.

vi- That the learned trial court has quite erroneously left out of consideration of

the criminal investigation which was carried out in the most fair and

transparent manner. It is relevant to point out here that snatched rifle 12-bore

was recovered from respondent No.1 and case under section 13/20/65 of

Prohibition of arms ordinance was registered against him vide case No.12663

dated 12-05-2004. Investigation officer found respondents No. 1 & 2 guilty

and fully involved during investigation. It is not out of place to mention here

that the respondents No. 1 & 2 are habitual.

vii- That no mala-fide on the part of prosecution is available and it is proved that

respondents No. 1 & 2 have committed the offences as mentioned in F.I.R in a

 very brutal manner, which got corroboration from the statements of PWs.

According to the trend of superior courts, the evidence produced by the

prosecution and PWs was of such aptitude which can be made basis for

convicting the respondents No. 1 & 2.

viii- That as it is evident from the record that no contradiction exists in statements

of PWs and the charge against the respondents No. 1 & 2 has been proved. The

learned trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence while not

minutely examining the evidence on record in true perspective.

ix- That the impugned judgment dated 03-03-2022 is result of glaring non-reading

and misreading of evidence, the acquittal is manifestly illegal. The prosecution

evidence was straightforward, natural and free from exaggeration. Honest

narration has been wrongly disbelieved by the learned trial court.

x- That the intrinsic value of prosecution evidence has the ring of truth and is

confidence inspiring. Therefore, the learned trial court has failed to adjudicate

judiciously, rather decided the case on presumptions, hypothesis, surmises and

conjectures.

xi- That the impugned judgment dated 03-03-2022 is against the law and facts of

the case and not sustainable in the eyes of law thus liable to be set aside.

xii- That the appellant would like to draw the kind attention of this Honorable court

to a landmark and celebrated judgment Ghulam Sikandar Vs. Mumraz Khan &

others reported in PLD 1985 SC 11, wherein it was held that to avoid the

miscarriage of justice, finding of the acquittal could be interfered with the

decision if after scrutiny the decision appeared to be “Shocking” and

“Ridiculous”.

xiii- That the impugned judgment dated 3-03-2022 is perverse and against the
norms of the law and facts of the instant case. The impugned judgment suffers
from both misreading and non-reading of evidence on record. Honorable
Supreme Court of Pakistan quite recently in its authoritative judgment given in
Khadija Siddique Vs. Shah Hussain reversing an acquittal veredict reported as
PLD 2019 SC 261 observed that:
 “We have noticed that some downright misreading of evidence had
been committed by the High Court and for some of the reasons prevailing with
it the High Court had ignored many critical aspects of the case available in the
evidence brought on record. The exercise of appreciation of evidence in this
case by the High Court has, thus, been found by us laconic and misreading and
non-reading of the record by the High Court has been found by us to have led
the said court in to a serious error of judgment occasioning failure of justice
and clamoring for interference in the matter by this court”.
xiv- That the appellant seeks leave to furnish further grounds at the hearing of the
instant appeal by this Honorable court.
In the light of aforementioned facts and circumstances, in order to
meet the justice and fairness, it is respectfully prayed that;
i. While allowing the appeal in hand, the impugned judgment dated
03-03-2022 passed by learned trial court, Lahore may very kindly be
set aside and resultantly respondents No. 1 & 2 may graciously be
convicted for the offences committed by them.
ii. Any other relief which this Hon. Court deems fit and proper may
also be awarded to the appellant.

APPELLANT
Through

CH. AKBAR ALI SHAD

Advocate Supreme Court
CNIC: 35200-00000000-5
CELL NO: 0300-9431070
87-The Mall, Lahore

Malik M. Azeem Awan

Advocate High Court
CNIC: 35200-3247579-5
CELL NO: 0304-6122852
87-The Mall, Lahore

CERTIFICATE:
As per instructions of client, it is certified that this is the 1st appeal on the same subject.

ADVOCATE