PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 97
[Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench]
Present: Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, J.
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. Nos. 327, 374, 310 of 2021 & Crl. Rev. No. 9 of 2023,
heard on 13.11.2023.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----Ss. 302(b)/34--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--A witness in view of his place of residence or occupation and in ordinary course of events is not supposed to be present at place of pounce out claims to be there by chance, testimony of such witness scrutiny and is not accepted unless he gives satisfactory explanation of his presence at or near place of occurrence at relevant time--Even conduct of prosecution witnesses at crime scene is far from reaction of a normal human and more-so of a close relative like brother--In this case, according to prosecution story deceased was being given repeated hatchet blows by respective accused persons, but during cross-examination complainant--Witnesses were not present at place of occurrence at relevant time and had not witnessed occurrence--If witnesses were present and had seen occurrence, then they could have shifted Muhammad Shahid (deceased) for first aid or at least could apply bandage on his wounds but it admittedly has not been done, rather according to prosecution witnesses succumbed to injuries right at spot--In such circumstances, conflict in ocular and medical account is damaging for prosecution--An inference that as a matter of fact prosecution witnesses were not truthful in their stance and were not presents place of occurrence at relevant time and had not witnessed occurrence--As s shall be seen from record, complainant while lodging FIR mentioned his mobile number and also mobile number of deceased and stated that prior to going in search of deceased he had made a call on his number but same was found switched off, thus CDR data of such mobile numbers could be vital for prosecution case--No documentary proof in this respect has porque on record, as Investigating Officer SI (PW-7) during cross-examination admitted that he had not got any ownership proof about house of occurrence, had not recorded statement of any of resident of house of occurrence nor even joined anyone from locality in investigation--When ownership of house (place of occurrence) remains shrouded in mystery, accused/appellant cannot be tagged with it--Prosecution has totally failed to establish charge against accused/appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and it is trite that to extend benefit of doubt to an accused person, it is not necessary that there should be several circumstances creating doubt, rather one reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused--Appeal allowed.
[Para 8, 9, 11, 13, 15] A, B, C, D, E, H, J & K
1978 SCMR 114, 1995 SCMR 896, 2004 SCMR 755, 2015 SCMR 1142, 2020 SCMR 1850, 2021 SCMR 612 & 2001 SCMR 612.
“Falus in uno falsus in omnibus”--
----Principle--FIR complainant had levelled specific allegations against all three accused/appellants, with no reference to any role towards unknown accused persons, but both prosecution witnesses while appearing in witness box improved their stances and attributed specific roles to accused persons, who initially had not been nominated in FIR and accused to whom subsequently roles were assigned stand acquitted by learned trial Court, which acquittal has not been assailed by prosecution, as such, serious doubt was created upon prosecution case qua present accused/appellants and they could not be convicted under principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in all). [Para 10] F
PLD 2019 SC 527 and 2022 SCMR 393
Testimony of Witness--
----In any case, since testimony of witnesses of ocular account has been disbelieved, motive part is least important to be given any weightage. [Para 12] G
2015 SCMR 315 & 2014 SCMR 1464.
Duty of Prosecution to prove case--
----Law is now well settled on point that prosecution is to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt at all stages of a criminal case and in a case where prosecution asserts presence of some eye-witnesses and such claim of prosecution is not established by it, accused could not be convicted merely on basis of a presumption that since murder had taken place in his house, therefore, it must be he and none else who would have committed that murder.
[Para 15] I
2011 SCMR 941, 2017 SCMR 724, 2018 SCMR 564, 2016 SCMR 1628 and PLD 2019 SC 592.
Mr. Farooq Haider Malik, Advocate for Appellants (in Crl. A. No. 327/2021).
Syed Zeeshan Haider, Advocate for Appellants (in Crl. A. No. 374/2021 and Crl. A. No. 310 of 2021).
Mr. Javed Iqbal Bhayya, ADPP for State.
Nemo for Complainant.
Judgment
Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ashfaq and Sahib Yar (accused/appellants) along with Shabir Ahmad, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Tahir alias Ghuman and Ghulam Murtaza faced trial before learned District & Sessions Judge, Lodhran in case FIR No. 275/2020 dated 18.05.2020 under Sections 302/148/149, PPC registered at police station Saddar Lodhran and on conclusion of trial vide judgment dated 27.07.2021, co-accused Shabir Ahmad, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Tahir alias Ghuman and Ghulam Murtaza were acquitted, whereas, Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Ashfaq and, Sahib Yar (accused/appellants) were convicted under Section 302(b)/34 PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life, each and also to pay
Rs. 500,000/- each as compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Shahid, in case of default to undergo six months SI, each, with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Criminal Appeal No. 310/2021 was filed by all three convicts (Sahib Yar, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ashfaq) through Superintendent Jail, subsequently, however, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ashfaq convicts filed their separate appeals i.e. Crl. A. No. 327/2021 and Crl. A. No. 374/2021, respectively, through a counsel, thus in the presence of such independent appeals, which are also subject matter of instant judgment, the Criminal Appeal No. 310/2021 to their extent has become redundant and it now remains alive to the extent of Sahib Yar alone, whereas, Criminal Revision No. 9/2023 has been filed by Muhammad Arshad complainant to seek enhancement of sentence of Sahib Yar, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ashfaq. All these matters are being decided through this single judgment.
2. Muhammad Arshad complainant (PW-1) got lodged FIR to the effect that on 18.05.2020 at 10/11.00 a.m. his brother Shahid (deceased) went to the house of Sahib Yar at M/95 to meet him and also took along his original identity card as well as mobile phone. As he did not return for about ¾ hours, the complainant made a call to him at 03047740195 which number was found switched off, whereupon, the complainant along with his brother Rashid (PW-2) and Zafar Iqbal (not produced) in search of Shahid went to the house of Sahib Yar and at about ¾.00 p.m. as they reached the house of Sahib Yar, they witnessed that Sahib Yar, Muhammad Ashfaq and Muhammad Iqbal along with ¾ unknown accused, all three armed with hatchets, were present and in their sight Muhammad Ashfaq inflicted repeated hatchet blows on left leg of Muhammad Shahid (deceased) whose said leg was cut and blood oozed. Muhammad Iqbal caused hatchet blow on right leg of Shahid and hatchet blow by Sahib Yar landed on his head above the left eye. The unknown accused persons also injured Shahid by their respective hatchets and on seeing the witnesses the accused persons made good their escape with crime weapons. The witnesses attended Shahid but he succumbed.
It was alleged that just due to some “Rishta” the deceased was summoned and killed.
3. On receipt of information about the occurrence, Muhammad Iqbal Sub-Inspector (PW-7) reached at the place of occurrence, where the complainant produced the complaint, which formed basis for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he prepared inquest report. Injury statement of Shahid and dispatched the dead body for autopsy, prepared rough site plan, took into possession blood stained earth lying beneath the dead body; the Crime Scene Investigation Unit (CSIU) team headed by Abdul Rao of Junior Forensic Scientist (PW-6) took into possession buccal swabs of deceased Muhammad Shahid, blood stained handle of hoe (kassi) for PFSA. The Investigating Officer, recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. On 24.06.2020 accused Sahib Yar was arrested and on his disclosure, hatchet was recovered from his house on 06.07.2020; Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ashfaq accused were arrested on 31.07.2020 and 07.08.2020, respectively. On 09.08.2020 through application (Ex.PD) the complainant nominated Murtaza, Ramzan and Muhammad Tahir alias Ghuman. Thereafter, the investigation was entrusted to Muhammad Saleem SI (PW-8) who on 14.08.2020 recovered blood-stained hatchet on the disclosure of Muhammad Iqbal accused and on 17.08.2020 Muhammad Ashfaq disclosed and got recovered blood stained hatchet. This witness apart from performing certain other functions, also collected CDR data of accused persons. Later the investigation of the case was entrusted to Aziz Ullah Khan SI (PW-9) who made statement with regard to arrest of Ghulam Murtaza and he finally handed over the case file to SHO for preparation of report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.
4. The accused persons were charge sheeted and on their denial, the prosecution examined Muhammad Arshad complainant (PW-1) and Muhammad Rashid (PW-2) who both deposed about the ocular account, Dr. Asif Abbas (PW-10) who had conducted autopsy over the dead body of Muhammad Shahid (deceased), Dr. Rafeia Munir (PW-11) examined X-rays of the deceased; Muhammad Iqbal SI (PW-7), Muhammad Saleem SI (PW-8) and Aziz Ullah SI (PW-9) had conducted the investigation of the case, Sh. Siraj Din Draftsman (PW-3) prepared site plan, Abdul Raoof JFS (PW-6) visited the spot and took into possession certain items, the rest of the witnesses were formal in nature and they deposed about their respective functions performed during the course of investigation. On close of prosecution case, the accused when examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence. However, they did not produce any witness in defence nor opted to appear in the witness box as required by Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and the trial ended in the terms as detailed in opening paragraph of this judgment.
5. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record with their assistance.
6. It is discernable from the record that both the witnesses of ocular account i.e. Muhammad Arshad complainant (PW-1) and Muhammad Rashid (PW-2) are brothers of Muhammad Shahid (deceased), as such undoubtedly, they would be deeply interested witnesses. Both the witnesses had given an explanation of their being present at the place of occurrence by stating that as their brother Shahid who had gone to the house of Sahib Yar had not returned back for about ¾ hours, therefore, the complainant made a call to Shahid but the mobile was found switched off, whereupon, they went to the house of Sahib Yar in search of their brother, but on this aspect no other independent witness was produced, despite the fact that according to the prosecution case one Zafar Iqbal had been also accompanied these witnesses and he too had seen the occurrence, but statement of such somewhat neutral witness was withheld by the prosecution. It has also come on the record through the statement of complainant that Mst. Saima Bibi, wife of Muhammad Shahid (deceased) was living in the house of Sahib Yar (accused) and according to Muhammad Rashid (PW-2) other members of the family also used to reside at the place of occurrence, thus they, or at least Mst. Saima Bibi, being wife of the deceased could be an important witness for the prosecution but she too was not associated with the investigation nor produced in the witness box. As held in the case “Lal Khan v. The State” (2006 SCMR 1846), withholding most natural and material witness of occurrence would create an impression adverse to the prosecution.
7. According to the prosecution case the place of occurrence is Chak No. 95/M, the house of Sahib Yar (accused) and further it has come on record through the statements of Muhammad Arshad complainant (PW-1) as well as Muhammad Rashid (PW-2) that their house was situated at a distance of 8-9 kilometers. As mentioned above the witnesses had put forth an explanation that they had gone to the place of occurrence in search of their brother Shahid who had not returned back 3-4 hours after his departure to the house of Sahib Yar. It is worth mentioning that Sahib Yar (accused) is the father-in-law of Muhammad Shahid (deceased), thus, in normal circumstances visit of Muhammad Shahid to the house of Sahib Yar does not seem improbable, but when this aspect is seen in the light of motive, set out by the prosecution i.e. dispute of a “Rishta”, it does not appeal to a man of common prudence that Muhammad Shahid would have paid visit just to see his father-in-law and more-so, the witnesses who were told by Muhammad Shahid about his intended visit, they also readily allowed him to go there. Another aspect of the case is that admittedly the house of Sahib Yar (place of occurrence) was at a distance of 8-9 kilometers from the house of complainant or the deceased, and nothing has come on the record that by which source Muhammad Shahid (deceased) had proceeded to the house of Sahib Yar. Though the complainant during cross-examination states that they approached to the place of occurrence by riding on a motorcycle, but no such vehicle was produced during the course of investigation. The overall scenario of the circumstances, especially the distance, shows that if the witnesses had not objected the visit of deceased to the house of his father-in-law then it is beyond one’s comprehension that just within three hours of departure of deceased, any suspicion would have arisen in the mind of the complainant and that too of such a nature that complainant took other witnesses with him and reached directly to the place of occurrence. Such story, on the face of it, does not fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
8. Even otherwise, I am mindful of the fact that a witness who in view of his place of residence or occupation and in the ordinary course of events is not supposed to be present at the place of the occurrence but claims to be there by chance, testimony of such witness requires cautious scrutiny and is not accepted unless he gives satisfactory explanation of his presence at or near the place of the occurrence at the relevant time. Reliance is placed on the cases Javed Ahmad v. State, 1978 SCMR 114 Zafar Hayat v. State, 1995 SCMR 896, Muhammad Rafique v. State, 2004 SCMR 755; Mst. Sughra Begum v. Qaiser Pervez, 2015 SCMR 1142 and Ibrar Hussain v. State, 2020 SCMR 1850. But, here in this case the presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence at the relevant time remains extremely doubtful for multiple reasons. Apart from the fact that during cross-examination the complainant was got confronted by the defence on some many important facts, the said witness also deposed that:
“I made a hold of my brother and my brother Rashid went to bring water for the victim and in the meanwhile, the victim died at the spot.”
From the above reproduced portion it is reflected that deceased who had multiple cut wounds, his body must have been smeared with blood, thus the clothes of complainant must also have carried deceased’s blood and the complainant adds that they produced blood stained clothes to the Investigating Officer, but no such fact has been found incorporated in the statement of the Investigating Officer, nor even otherwise, any PESA report about such clothes is available on the file. On the contrary, Muhammad Rashid (PW-2) in unequivocal terms stated that “We did not produce our blood-stained clothes to the I.O as he stated that in case of need he will demand our blood stained clothes.” Further, even the conduct of prosecution witnesses at the crime scene is far from the reaction of a normal human and more-so of a close relative like brother. In this case, according to the prosecution story the deceased was being given repeated hatchet blows by respective accused persons, but during cross-examination the complainant further stated that:
“Throughout the occurrence, we remained standing at the same place i.e. 17-18 feet away and did not try to move to any other side. We did not sustain any scratch etc. During the occurrence.
“We did not make any effort to apprehend any of the accused or to snatch any weapon from them. Sahib Yar accused is an old man. We did not try to shift Muhammad Shahid to any hospital. Volunteered that he immediately died. When we went near the deceased to attend him, he had already died.”
Similarly, Muhammad Rashid (PW-2) during cross-examination stated that “Neither we tried to chase the assailants, nor tried to apprehend or tried to snatch any weapon from the assailants.” The above pointed portions from the statements of prosecution witnesses, on one hand exhibit their unnatural behavior at the spot and on the other hand, it also contradict the earlier reproduced statement of the complainant, wherein, according to him the deceased had breathed his last in his hands, when the other witness had gone to fetch water for him. I therefore, hold that witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and had not witnessed the occurrence. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case “Muhammad Idrees and another versus The State and others” (2021 SCMR 612).
9. The prosecution case is further shattered by medical evidence for the reason that occurrence took place on 18.05.2020 at about 3/4.00 p.m. and according to Dr. Asif Abbas (PW-10) the dead body was received at 11.35 p.m, when post-mortem was conducted and according to the doctor rigor mortis had developed and fixed. Considering the time span between death i.e. at 3/4.00 p.m. and post-mortem at 11.35 p.m. though rigor mortis would have started but it could not be said to have developed and Fixed ED within six to seven hours. Thus, it becomes obviously clear that firstly, had the witnesses seen the occurrence there would not have been such inordinate delay in dispatching the dead body to mortuary and conduct of post-mortem, and secondly the opinion of the doctor about developed rigor mortis, indicates that the occurrence or the death did not take place at the time which has been posed by the prosecution. Further though the time expressed by the doctor between death and post-mortem does commensurate with the prosecution story but at the same time the doctor has observed the time between injury and death as 1-2 hours, which contradicts the prosecution case because according to prosecution witnesses the death of Muhammad Shahid was almost instantaneous. Last but not the least neither of the injuries attributed to the accused/appellants directly were opined to be the cause of death, rather according to the doctor the death had occurred because of excessive bleeding. The doctor further went on to clarify that Injury No. 3 on left side of forehead (attributed to Sahib Yar accused/ appellant) cannot be the only cause of death and that mere exposure of bone was not dangerous. Similarly, Injury No. 2 on medial aspect of right knee (attributed to Muhammad Iqbal accused/appellant) and by referring to time which lapsed between injury and death as 1-2 hours, the medical officer added that during such time if the deceased is provided first aid, he could have survived. This statement of the doctor goes a long way to damage the prosecution case because, as observed above, if the witnesses were present and had seen the occurrence, then they could have shifted Muhammad Shahid (deceased) for first aid or at least could apply bandage on his wounds but it admittedly has not been done, rather according to prosecution witnesses the Muhammad Shahid succumbed to injuries right at the spot. In such circumstances, conflict in ocular and medical account is damaging for prosecution. Reliance is placed on judgment reported as “Muhammad Idrees and another vs. The State and others” (2021 SCMR 612) and such contradiction also leads us to draw an inference that as a matter of fact the prosecution witnesses were not truthful in their stance and were not presents at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and had not witnessed the occurrence. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case “Muhammad Ashraf alias Acchu versus The State” (2019 SCMR 652) and “Zafar versus The State and others” (2018 SCMR 326).
10. In addition to the above, it has been noticed that in the FIR the complainant had levelled specific allegations against all three accused/appellants, with no reference to any role towards unknown accused persons, but both the prosecution witnesses while appearing in the witness box improved their stances and attributed specific roles to the accused persons, who initially had not been nominated in the FIR and the accused to whom subsequently roles were assigned stand acquitted by the learned trial Court, which acquittal has not been assailed by the prosecution, as such, serious doubt was created upon the prosecution case qua present accused/appellants and they could not be convicted under the principle of “falsus in uno falsus in omnibus” (false in one thing, false in all). Reliance is placed on the case reported as “Notice to Police Constable Khizar Hayat son of Hadait Ullah” (PLD 2019 SC 527) and “Pervaiz Khan and another versus The State” (2022 SCMR 393).
11. As regards recoveries, Sahib Yar, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ashfaq accused were arrested on 24.06.2020, 31.07.2020 and 07.08.2020 respectively and further the crime weapons (hatchets) were show recovered on their disclosures on 06.07.2020, 14.08.2020 and 7.08.2020 respectively and all such weapons were shown stained with blood. This being the position, considering that the occurrence took place on 18.05.2020, firstly it is near to impossible that the accused who had committed a murder would keep the crime weapons in safe custody for such long, especially when they had escaped from the place of occurrence and were arrested so long after the occurrence; secondly the crime weapons (hatchets) could not have carried blood stains after such long time, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case “Faisal Mehmood versus The State (2016 SCMR 2138) that human blood would have disintegrated in a period of about three weeks. Apart from above, although report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency (Ex.PDD) has been placed on the record but it does not advance the case of the prosecution for the reason that it only identifies the presence of human blood and it is not the matching report to connect it as crime weapons used for the murder of deceased. Furthermore, according to Abdul Rauf JFS/CSU (PW-6) buccal swab s, nail swabs of right and left hand, swabs from the handle of “kassi” were taken but the PFSA report (Ex.PFF) is inconclusive, as no analyses was conducted in this respect.
12. As regards motive, the prosecution took a specific stance that Muhammad Shahid was done to death because of some “Rishta” dispute but the complainant while entering into witness box as PW-1 stated that:
“No witness regarding the dispute of Rishta was produced by us before the investigating officer. Neither in the FIR nor in any statement during investigation I mentioned the reason of dispute or about the name of person whose Rishta was the bone of contention”
The Investigating Officer also admitted that he did not collect any evidence about the dispute between the parties about motive of the occurrence and even the trial Court also disbelieved the motive part of the occurrence. Thus, I am of the view that though the motive was set but the same could not be established by the prosecution leaving the entire episode of the tragedy in doubt. Reliance is placed on cases reported as “Pathan versus The State” (2015 SCMR 315) and “Naveed alias Needu and others versus The State and others” (2014 SCMR 1464). In any case, since the testimony of witnesses of ocular account has been disbelieved, the motive part is least important to be given any weightage.
13. As shall be seen from the record, the complainant while lodging the FIR mentioned his mobile number and also the mobile number of deceased and stated that prior to going in search of Muhammad Shahid (deceased) he had made a call on his number but the same was found switched off, thus CDR data of such mobile numbers could be vital for the prosecution case,but here in this case Muhammad Iqbal Sub-Inspector (PW-7) during cross-examination admitted that:
“I have no got any ownership of mobile of the deceased. The complainant had not disclosed to me any detail of the mobile i.e. its model or make etc. During investigation, neither the said, mobile was recovered from any accused nor. I myself found it during site inspection. I have not got the CDR of mobile No. 0304-7740195. The aforesaid SIM was also not recovered from any of the accused persons. No proof was collected by me regarding the call record of complainant to the deceased from his phone. During the investigation, the complainant or any of his witnesses had not disclosed that they had passed this information at 15. I have drafted the application to get the CDR of cell phone of the deceased but had not submitted it to the concerned authority. I have not got the CDR of 0306-1024530. I have mentioned the aforesaid number in my application but the same was not filed/submitted. During investigation, I have not got the CDRs of any mobile phone. I cannot state that who is owner/user of cell No. 0306-1024530. I had drafted the application for CDR but no date was mentioned by me on it. CDR of cell No. 0306-1024530 is available on the judicial file but I had not got the said CDR.”
In this view of the matter, the CDR which otherwise, could be helpful for the prosecution to establish case, is found missing.
15. Though it was contended by the learned ADPP that dead body was found from inside the house of Sahib Yar accused/appellant thus, it was for him to explain the circumstances, but the law is now well settled on the point that the prosecution is to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt at all stages of a criminal case and in a case where the prosecution asserts presence of some eye-witnesses and such claim of the prosecution is not established by it, the accused could not be convicted merely on the basis of a presumption that since the murder had taken place in his house, therefore, it must be he and none else who would have committed that murder. In this respect the learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases reported in “Abdul Majeed vs. The State (2011 SCMR 941), “Nasrullah alias Nasro versus The State” (2017 SMR 724), “Arshd Khan versus The State” (2018 SCMR 564) “Nazeer Ahmed versus The State” (2016 SCMR 1628), “Muhammad Pervaiz versus The State and another” (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 592), “Asad Khan versus The State” (PLD 2017 Supreme Court 681) and “Wajahat versus Gul Draz and another” (2019 SCMR 1451). Even otherwise, though it has come in the statement of Sheikh Siraj Din, Draftsman (PW-3) that in the sketch map of the house he has mentioned that the house belongs to Sahib Yar accused, but it is a fact that no documentary proof in this respect has been brought on the record, as Investigating Officer Muhammad Iqbal SI (PW-7) during cross-examination admitted that he had not got any ownership proof about the house of occurrence, had not recorded the statement of any of the resident of the house of occurrence nor even joined anyone from the locality in the investigation. In this view of the matter when the ownership of the house (place of occurrence) remains shrouded in mystery, the accused/appellant cannot be tagged with it.
15. For what has been discussed above, in the instant case the prosecution has totally failed to establish the charge against the accused/appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and it is trite that to extend benefit of doubt to an accused person, it is not necessary that there should be several circumstances creating doubt, rather one reasonable doubt is sufficient to acquit an accused. Reliance is placed on the cases “Muhammad Mansha versus The State” (2018 SCMR 772) and “Muhammad Imran versus The State (2020 SCMR 857). Consequently, Criminal Appeal Nos. 327/2021, 374/2021 and 310/2021 are allowed and the accused/appellants are acquitted of the charges. They shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The case property, if any, shall be disposed of in accordance with law and the record of the trial Court be sent back immediately.
For the above reasons, Criminal Revision No. 9/2023 filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of sentence, fails and is dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Appeal allowed
0 Comments