ISLAMABAD: The Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) on Tuesday acquitted four individuals in a land dispute case, citing insufficient evidence and procedural lapses in the prosecution`s case, observing that zeal to punish blurs the distinction between arbitrary decisions and lawful judgements.

The judgement, delivered by Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, overturned the convictions of Raja Shahid Ahmad, Haq Nawaz Abbasi, Aurangzeb, and Malik Muhammad Safdar, who had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment by a lower court in June 2024. The case pertained to allegations offraudulent land transactions involving mutations (land records) in Mauza Rajer, Rawalpindi.

The complainant, Nisar Ahmad Afzal, claimed that the accused had illegally inserted their names into land records without his consent, causing him significant financial loss. The accused were charged under sections 409, 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

The trial court had convicted the four individuals and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment ranging from three to seven years, along with hefty fines.

However, the appellants challenged the verdict, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution`s case heavily relied on the allegation that the names of Raja Shahid Ahmad and Haq Nawaz Abbasi were fraudulently inserted into the land records. However, forensic analysis conducted by the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) found no evidence of tampering or subsequent insertion of names.

The court noted that the PFSA report `smashed the whole foundation of the prosecution`s case.

The court highlighted that the complainant, Nisar Ahmad Afzal, filed the case only after the death of the original landowner, Haji Muhammad Azram, in April 2021. The mutations in question had been sanctioned in 2015, and no complaints were lodged during Mr Azram`s lifetime. This delay raised suspicions about the complainant`s motives and the validity of his claims.

It may be mentioned earlier, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) had frozen the assets of the complainant, citing the letter of the National Crime Agency. It stated that Nisar Ahmad Afzal and his brother Saghir Ahmad Afzal were involved in the £60 million mortgage fraud in the UK in 2004-06. The assets freezing order was withdrawn later on.

The LHC found that the prosecution`s witnesses, including revenue officials and the investigating officer, failed to provide consistent and credible evidence. Notably, the marginal witnesses of the land transactions, Umar Hayat and Gull Hussain, supported the appellants` claim that the land was legitimately sold to them by Haji Muhammad Azram.

The court noted that the complainant made inconsistent statements regarding the nature of the land transactions. Initially, he claimed that the land was sold to him in 2003, but later admitted that he had no agreement to prove the sale. He also failed to produce any evidence of payment for the land, further weakening his case.

The court noted that the disputed mutations had not been canceled or challenged in any civil court, and subsequent land transactions based on these mutations remained intact. This further undermined the prosecution`s claim of fraud, the judge observed.

Justice Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, in his detailed judgement, emphasised that criminal liability must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He stated, `The zeal to punish an offender evenin derogation or violation of the law would blur the distinction between arbitrary decisions and lawful judgements.` The court found that the prosecution had failed to meet this standard, and the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

The judgement also highlighted the importance of adhering to legal principles, stating, `Tolerating the acquittal of some guilty, whose guilt is not proved under the law, is the price which society must pay for the protection of constitutional rights.` The court acquitted all four appellants and ordered their immediate release if they were not required in any other case.