-Ss. 302/148/149--Eye witness disbelieved--Principle of shifting the grain from the chaff is no more applicable in the Courts of Pakistan-

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1065

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--

----Ss. 302/148/149--Qatl-i-Amd--Eye witness disbelieved--Acquittal of--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Statement of two eye- witnesses have been specifically disbelieved by the trial court against three accused, they cannot be relied upon also to the extent of appellant--Principle of shifting the grain from the chaff is no more applicable in the Courts of Pakistan--Conviction is set aside--He is acquitted--Appeal allowed.          [P. 1067] A, B & C

2021 SCMR 455; 2021 SC MR 471; 2017 SCMR 344; 2018 SCMR 344; 2008 SCMR 6; PLD 2019 SC 527 ref.

Mr. Abid Hussain Shah, Advocate for Appellant.

Mr. Adnan Latif Sheikh, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Date of hearing: 3.3.2022.

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1065
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sohail Nasir, J.
RASHEED AHMAD alias SHEEDA--Appellant
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 25 of 2018, heard on 3.3.2022.

Judgment

Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda (appellant) along with Muhammad Hanif, Shabbir Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif had faced trial in case FIR No. 159 (PA/1) recorded on 07.05.2014 under Sections 302/148/149, PPC at police station Sadar Dunyapur District Lodhran on the complaint of Fayyaz Hussain s/o Ghulam Hussain for the allegations of commission of Qatl-i-Amd of Ghulam Hussain (father of Fayyaz Hussain). On conclusion of trial vide judgment dated 22.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions. Judge Dunyapur District Lodhran Rasheed Ahmad alias Rasheeda (appellant) was convicted under Section 302(b), PPC to imprisonment for life with direction to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (one lac) as compensation in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased and in default of payment thereof to further undergo six months SI. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him. On the strength of same judgment three accused were acquitted from the case.

2. Appellant being dissatisfied from his conviction has approached this Court through the instant Criminal Appeal.

3. In brief prosecution's case was that on 07.05.2014 Fayyaz Hussain s/o Ohulam Hussain (PW-1) submitted an application (PA) to SHO where he maintained that on that night Ghulam Hussain his father was sleeping in the cattle shed whereas he/complainant, Fayyaz Hussain s/o Allah Bakhsh (PW-2) and Muhammad Amin (given up) were present in their house; at about 12:10 am (mid night) they heard steps voices and when they went in the cattle shed, in the light of torch they found present there Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda (appellant), Muhammad Hanif, Shabbir Ahmad and Muhammad Sharif; Rasheed Ahmad give a sota blow on the forehead of Ghulam Hussain; Muhammad Hanif inflicted injury on both eyes of Ghulam Hussain with sota; Shabbir Ahmad caused an injury on the nose of Ghulam Hussain with sota and finally Muhammad Sharif inflicted a blow on the right side of forehead of Ghulam Yasin; an unknown assailant present there having a sota had been raising Lalkara.

4. On conclusion of investigation a report under Section, 173, Cr.P.C. (Challan) was submitted in Court.

5. A charge under Sections 302/148/149 PPC framed against appellant and his co-accused for which they pleaded not guilty and demanded the trial.

6. In order to prove its case prosecution had produced as many as 11 witnesses.

7. In his examination made under Section 342, Cr.P.C. appellant pleaded his false involvement.

8. HEARD.

9. This case does not need lengthy discussion for a simple reason that similarly placed three accused Muhammad Hanif, Shabbir Ahmed and Muhammad Sharif who were also assigned injuries to Ghulam Hussain have been acquitted by the learned trial Court and said acquittal has not been taken to an exception. The learned trial Court in paragraph No. 31 of the judgment categorically observed” that said three accused were involved in the case by the complainant because of their relationship with Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda (appellant) and that complainant was also inimical towards the said accused who during investigation were also found innocent. When the statements of two eye witnesses Fayyaz Hussain s/o Ghulam Hussain (PW-1) and Muhammad Fayyaz s/o Allah Bakhsh (PW-2) have been specifically disbelieved by the learned trial Court against three accused, they cannot be relied upon also to the extent of appellant. (See: Sardar Bibi & another vs. Munir Ahmad & others 2017 SCMR 344, Imtiaz alias Taj vs. The State 2018 SCMR 344, Ahktar Ali & others vs. The State 2008 SCMR 6. Liaqat Ali & others vs. The State 2021 SCMR 455 and Tariq Mehmood vs The State 2021 SCMR 471).

10. The Apex Court also in its land mark judgment (PLD 2019 SC 527) has declared that the principle of 'sifting the grain from the chaff is no more applicable in Courts of Pakistan. It was further held that the rule “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” shall hence forthwith be the integral part of our jurisprudence in criminal cases.

11. Resultantly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment to the extent of conviction of Rasheed Ahmad alias Sheeda is set aside. He is acquitted from the case. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The case property shall be dealt with in the same manners as directed by the learned trial Court.

(K.Q.B.)          Appeal allowed