IN THE
COURT OF (NAME OF THE MAGISTRATE), JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1ST CLASS, (NAME OF THE CITY).
The State
Versus.
Accused and complete
residential address
Case FIR No 000/0000 dated 00-00-0000
Offences
U/S 420/468/471/170/171
PPC
Police Station (name
of the police station and city)
Date of
Decision 00-00-0000.
J U D G M E N T
Concisely,
the story of the prosecution as disclosed in the FIR was that complainant along
with other traffic police officials while standing on duty in Bazaar, suddenly
one car color white having registration NO.0000/ABC along with logo of Legislative Assembly on
the plates of registration number; that on suspicion the said vehicle was
stopped and upon inquiry driver failed
to satisfy the officials; that driver told himself as owner of the vehicle but
failed to produce any driving license or registration book of the said car;
that accused used green number plates and also used said Assembly logo and in
this way, the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 170/171/420/468/471
PPC and consequently the instant case was registered.
2. Investigation of the case was conducted
by Investigating Officer who prepared
the site plan, got recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161
Cr.P.C., arrested the accused person and send him in judicial lockup and
subsequently report U/S 173 Cr.P.C send to court for trial against accused
person.
3. After delivering of copies of statements
of PWs as well as other documents as provided under section 241-A Cr.P.C.,
formal charge against the accused person was framed on 00.00.0000 against
accused person under Section 170/171/420/468/471 PPC where-from he pleaded himself
not guilty, therefore, trial of the accused was proceeded.
4. In
evidence, statements of three prosecution witnesses were recorded.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence,
statements of the accused person was recorded under section 342 Cr.P.C. Accused
person denied the commission of offence as well as depositions of the
witnesses. Accused neither opted to record his statement under section 340(2)
Cr.P.C. nor any defense evidence.
Anyhow, following was the version of accused person which was recoded
separately of the accused person;
The allegation
leveled against me is absolutely wrong and incorrect. I have not committed any kind of cheating and
personation of being member of Assembly is incorrect. Traffic Police took my words seriously and
registered this fake and false and fabricated case against me.”
6. After the conclusion of trial, arguments
of the learned ADPP and counsel for accused person was heard.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by
learned ADPP and learned defense counsel, perused the case file and gone
through the evidence and record available on the file with their able
assistance, my findings on the points for determination are as under:-
8. Even a single glance at the scheme of
oral evidence produced by the prosecution reveals that same is vividly pregnant
with in number of insurmountable anomalies, paradoxes and contradictions. Ex.PA, the written complaint, the complainant
has stated that accused person committed personation and also made forgery by
preparing green number plates along with logo of Assembly and used the same and committed offences. Even an exhaustive analysis of the statement
of complainant, green number plates and logo of Government was made by accused and
same was used, as deposed by complainant while appearing as witness but neither
green number plates nor logo of assembly produced before the court. This
very fact has cast clear cut shadow of doubt upon the very beginning of the
occurrence as well as veracity and genuineness of the statement of the
complainant, who by every yard sticks, is to be considered as a Star witness of
the instant case and as such, his deposition matters the most. Similarly, PW
also deposed that green number plates and logo of Assembly was made and used by
accused. During cross examination, PW deposed that at the place of occurrence a few people
was there but no one was ready to be made himself as witness of the case. PW-2
deposed that no private person was there at the place of occurrence whereas
PW-3 deposed that there was number of peoples but no private witness was
recorded. PW-3 admitted in his cross examination that he himself not prepared
any memo of recovery of alleged forged green number plates nor any memo of
recovery was prepared regarding the logo of Assembly. PW-3 also admitted that he never conducted verification
of alleged forged green number plates and logo of Assembly from Excise and
Taxation Department. PW-3 admitted that he
orally verified regarding registration book but no certificate was obtained
from the department. PW-3 admitted that neither he obtained any certificate
regarding verification nor attached any verification certificate with the
report U/S 173 Cr.P.C.
9. Prosecution failed to explain his
vindication regarding non production of alleged green number plates and logo of
Assembly with the record and also failed to prove that why investigation agency not himself verified
the alleged registration of green number plates affixed by the accused while
collecting evidence in the instant case.
Even otherwise, during evidence prosecution failed to submit alleged green
number plates and logo of Assembly with the trial court to prove the
personation and forgery committed by the accused person. Complainant had not produced any document on
record to establish the personation and forgery which was as per prosecution
evidence with the possession and approach of prosecution. Evidence recorded did not connect accused
with commission of offence beyond doubt.
10. Not a single witness deposed that forgery was committed
by the accused in their presence.
Prosecution got registered case against accused person U/S 170/171/420/468/471
PPC but not a single word uttered to prove guilt of accused person regarding
forgery for the purpose of cheating and using as genuine of forged green number
plates and logo of Assembly. Prosecution
only deposed in whole evidence that accused used green number plates and logo
of Assembly on his car but this very fact was also not proved by the
prosecution through evidence. It
is held by Apex Courts in chain of cases that prosecution is duty bound to
prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and if any single and slightest
doubt is created, its benefit must go to the accused and that would be
sufficient to discredit the prosecution story and to entitle the accused to
acquittal. Oral evidence as well as
documentary evidence has not proved the involvement of accused person in the
alleged occurrence beyond shadow of doubt.
It is held in 2011 SCMR 629 in case Sabir Ali Vs The State that:
“General principle in criminal
jurisprudence is that prosecution is to prove the case against the accused
beyond doubt and this burden does not shift from prosecution, even if accused
takes up any particular plea and fails in it….Any room for benefit of doubt in
the prosecution case will go to accused and not prosecution.”
11. In this situation, there is very insufficient evidence produced by the prosecution and
evidence which was recorded, have many lacunas and contradictions. No
credibility can be assigned safely to convict the accused who is otherwise the favorite
child of law and entitled for every benefit of doubt. In the light of above
discussion, it is held that since prosecution has failed to bring any
incriminating material and absolute free from doubt type of evidence against
the nominated accused, therefore, by giving the benefit of doubt, accused is
acquitted from the charges U/S 170/171/420/468/471 PPC in this case. Accused
person is on bail. His bail bonds are
cancelled and his surety is discharged from further liabilities. File be consigned
to the record room after due completion.
Announced:
(date)
NAME
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Faisalabad.
No comments:
Post a Comment