"To sift grain from chaff"--"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"--CrPc --Ss. 435 & 439-

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 543

Ocular account--

----If ocular account has been disbelieved qua four accused, how can it be relied upon to extent of petitioner.  [P. 546] A

"To sift grain from chaff"--

----Principle--Principle "to sift grain from chaff is no more applicable in Courts of Pakistan as Apex Court in its land mark judgment.                                                                                       

                                                                                             [P. 546] C

PLD 2019 SC 527.

"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"--

----Rule--Rule 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' shall hence-forthwith be an integral part of our jurisprudence in criminal cases.                                                                               [P. 546] D

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----Ss. 435 & 439--Criminal revision--Petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was decided and passed by Additional Session Judge--Trial Court was modified as his conviction and sentence to extend of S. 337(ii), PPC--Being aggrieved from judgment of two Courts below, petitioner approached High Court through criminal revision petition--In FIR complainant assigned role of injuries to petitioner and all other accused which were specific--Even as a witness in Court he narrated same injuries again which means that his version was not changed at all--He is an injured witness--His presence may be established at crime scene but principle cannot be ignored that injuries on a person proves only his presence but without giving a stamp of truth--Trial Court surprisingly did not assign any good reason for acquittal of four accused and to convict petitioner in this case--Only on basis of presumptions he recorded findings that he was only petitioner who gave injuries to comlainant--By following said principle, when ocular account has been discredited to extent of four accused, there is no justification at all to make reliance on same evidence qua petitioner--Revision allowed.               [Pp. 546] B & E

Malik Muhammad Zahid Kabeer, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Laeeq-ur-Rehman, ADPP for State.

Date of hearing: 4.10.2021.

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 543
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sohail Nasir, J.
MOHAMMAD ASGHAR--Petitioner
versus
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE and 3 others--Respondents
Crl. Rev. No. 161 of 2015, heard on 4.10.2021.

Judgment

Mohammad Asghar (petitioner), Sajid Hussain, Muhammad Arshad, Zafar Iqbal and Mushtaq Ahmad alias Sher Khan had faced trial in case FIR No. 658 recorded on 20.11.2009 under Sections 337-A(ii)/148/149, PPC at police station Shah Jamal District Muzaffargarh. On conclusion of trial vide a judgment dated 25.02.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffargarh Muhammad Asghar (petitioner) was convicted and sentenced as under:

i.        Under Section 337-A(ii), PPC to pay Rs. 96,192/-as Diyat and to undergo three years R.I as TAZIR.

ii.       Under Section 337-A(i), PPC to pay Daman Rs. 20,000/- and to undergo R.I one year as TAZIR.

iii.      Under Section 337-L(ii), PPC to pay Daman Rs. 5,000/- and to undergo R.I one year as TAZIR.

2. It was ordered that Daman and Diyat shall be payable to injured Altaf Hussain (complainant) and that all sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 382-B of Cr.P.C. was also extended to petitioner. On the basis of same judgment remaining accused Mushtaq alias Sher Khan, Muhammad Arshad, Zafar Iqbal and Sajid Hussain were acquitted.

3. Petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence which was decided vide a judgment dated 18.04.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh. The judgment of the learned trial Court was modified as conviction and sentence to the extent of Section 337-(ii), PPC was upheld.

4. Being aggrieved from the judgments of two Courts below, petitioner has approached this Court through the instant Criminal Revision.

5. In brief prosecution's case was that on 20.11.2009 Altaf Hussain/complainant made a statement to Khadim Hussain ASI
(PW-5) and maintained that on that day that was 20.11.2009 he was sitting at his tube-well; in the meantime Mushtaq Ahmad alias Sher Muhammad armed with sota, Zafar Iqbal armed with iron rod, Asghar Ali, Muhammad Arshad and Sajid all armed with sotas came there; Mushtaq Ahmad raised a Lalkara and gave sota blow on his/Altaf Hussain's right hand thumb; Zafar Iqbal caused an injury at upper part of left eye with iron road; he/Altaf Hussain fell down where after Asghar Ali gave a sota blow on his right shoulder; Muhammad Arshad and Sajid also inflicted injuries with sota blows on his back; on his hue and cry Muhammad Shahbaz and Muhammad Ashraf arrived there and rescued him. Motive alleged was that two days earlier there was a quarrel between Shahbaz the son of complainant and Zafar Iqbal accused.

6. Case was investigated by Khadim Hussain ASI (PW-5) and Akbar Ali ASI (PW-3). On conclusion thereof report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. (Challan) was submitted in the Court.

7. The charge framed against petitioner and his co-accused was not pleaded guilty by them where after prosecution had produced
Altaf Hussain/injured (PW-1), Muhammad Shahbaz (PW-2), Akbar Ali (PW-3), Dr. Naseer Ahmad (PW-4), Khadim Hussain ASI (PW-5) and Mulazim Hussain constable (PW-6).

8. In his examination under Section 342, Cr.P.C. version of petitioner was that he was falsely involved in this case as the son of complainant was a police employee.

9. Learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor while opposing this Criminal Revision maintains that Altaf Hussain is an injured witness whose presence is fully established therefore no reason is there to discard his testimony; private witnesses narrated the manners of occurrence in detail and their statements do not suffer from any contradiction or infirmity; both the Courts below after appreciation of entire material produced in this case rightly concluded that prosecution had proved its case against petitioner hence he has been rightly convicted.

10. HEARD.

11. This case does not require any detail discussion on an important reason that four other accused similarly placed as of petitioner, have been acquitted and no exception has been taken by prosecution to that decision. If ocular account has been disbelieved qua four accused, how can it be relied upon to the extent of petitioner.

12. As mentioned earlier in FIR Altaf Hussain assigned the role of injuries to petitioner and all other accused which were specific. Even as a witness in the Court he narrated the same injuries again which means that his version was not changed at all. He is an injured witness. His presence may be established at crime scene but the principle cannot be ignored that injuries on a person proves only his presence but without giving a stamp of truth. The learned trial Court surprisingly did not assign any good reason for acquittal of four accused and to convict petitioner in this case. Only on the basis of presumptions he recorded the findings that he was only petitioner who gave injuries to Altaf Hussain.

13. The principle "to sift the grain from the chaff” is no more applicable in the Courts of Pakistan as the Apex Court in its land mark judgment PLD 2019 SC 527 has declared that rule 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' shall hence-forthwith be an integral part of our jurisprudence in criminal cases. By following the said principle, when ocular account has been discredited to the extent of four accused, there is no justification at all to make reliance on the same evidence qua the petitioner.

14. Both the learned Courts below gave no good and convincing reasons while convicting the petitioner, hence this Criminal Revision is allowed. Impugned judgments are set-aside and petitioner is acquitted from the case. His sentence was suspended by this Court and he was released on bail therefore his surety is discharged from terms and conditions of bail bonds.

(A.A.K.)          Revision allowed