Javaid vs Sher Zaman S — 2025 YLR 2433 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Javaid VS Sher Zaman S. 3---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.417(2-A)---Illegal dispossession---Appeal against acquittal---Appreciation of evidence---Scope---Complainant was aggrieved of Trial Court's order whereby his complaint filed under S. 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was dismissed and accused were acquitted---Validity---Complainant alleged that he was owner in possession over his inherited property; that accused persons/ respondents dispossessed him, occupied the said property and cut-downed crops planted on the same---Record showed that complainant in his cross-examination had stated that the suit property was their inherited property, however, in his statement before Investigating Officer he had come up with another claim that the disputed land was purchased by him from one "AK"---In order to clarify that ambiguity about ownership of very disputed land, during the course of trial, appellant/complainant could not produce any documentary evidence in terms as to whether the disputed land had become ownership of appellant on account of being his inherited property or it had fallen into their ownership in view of any sale or deed---Likewise, Muharir deposed in his cross-examination deposed that during trial complainant could not produce any ownership document qua purchase of property in dispute---Same was the case with testimony of Investigating Officer, who deposed in his cross-examination that complainant had not produced any document in the form of deed in respect of ownership of the property in dispute---Another alleged eye-witness of occurrence deposed in his cross-examination that he did not remember as to whether at the time of recording of his statement any other persons were present with him or not---In the same breath, said witness also deposed that at the time of harvesting of crops he was present in his house and as soon as he came out therefrom, he had seen accused cutting crops---Said witness further clarified that he neither informed complainant in respect of cutting of crops by one of the nominated accused nor any other person of locality apprised him, in that regard---Similarly, eye-witness deposed in his Court statement that both the parties were cousin inter-se and he had no knowledge about ownership and possession of both the parties---Likewise, it was also claimed by complainant that when nominated accused had entered into his landed property they had allegedly cut-downed barely crops cultivated on the same and said harvested crops had subsequently been taken by accused to their houses without his permission---However, during the course of investigation neither cut-downed pieces of crops had been taken into possession by Investigating Officer in order to verify and substantiate claim of appellant nor any incriminating recovery in that regard had been made from personal possession of accused/respondents nor on their pointation, therefore, that alleged claim of complainant qua harvesting/cutting of barely crops was shrouded in mystery---Even otherwise, alleged testimonies of both the eye-witnesses would be of no help to complainant/prosecution because they had not uttered a single word in respect of dispossession of complainant from the property in dispute---In view of the depositions of star witnesses of appellant/complainant including his own testimony before the Court, it was crystal clear that neither appellant could produce any documentary evidence about ownership of property in dispute wherefrom he was allegedly dispossessed nor his witnesses could utter a single word in their testimonies before Court that in their presence the alleged offence of dispossession of appellant took place---Thus, the whole allegation of appellant/complainant in terms that he had been dispossessed from property in dispute was standing in vacuum---Circumstances established that the case of appellant/complainant was a case of no evidence---Appeal being bereft of any merits was dismissed, in limine.

Javaid vs Sher Zaman S — 2025 YLR 2433 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 YLR