PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 186
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, JJ.
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 67340, Crl. PSLA No. 73090 of 2019 & M.R No. 06 of 2020, decided on 31.1.2024.
Evidence--
----In is by now well settled that it is quality of evidence and not quantity which weighs with Courts to decide any case. [Para 9] A
2006 SCMR 1846.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860--
----S. 302(b)--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Question of--Quantum of sentence--Medical evidence--Ocular account--It is not a case of capital punishment because, Court have noted some mitigating circumstances in favour of appellant--Firstly, we have disbelieved recovery of .12-bore carbine at pointing out of appellant due to reasons mentioned in para No. 11 of this judgment, secondly, prosecution has alleged a specific motive against appellant but has failed to prove same, in light of grounds mentioned in para No. 12 of this judgment--It is, therefore, not determinable in this case that as to what was real cause of occurrence and as to what had actually happened between appellant and deceased before occurrence which had resulted into aforementioned unfortunate incident, therefore, death sentence awarded to appellant is quite harsh--While treating it is a case of f mitigation--The conviction of appellant u/S. 302(b), PPC awarded by trial Court is maintained but his sentence is altered from death to imprisonment for life--Compensation awarded by trial Court and sentence in default thereof are maintained and upheld--Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is also given to appellant.
[Para 14 & 15] B & C
2011 SCMR 593.
Acquittal--
----It is by now well settled that after acquittal from a Court of competent jurisdiction, an accused enjoys double presumption of innocence and very strong and exceptional grounds are required to interfere with judgment of acquittal of Court but an accused by Court. [Para 17] D
M/s. Khawar Mehboob Malik & Kamran Javed Malik, Advocates for Appellants.
Mr. Munir Ahmad Sial, Additional Prosecutor General for State.
Ch. Akbar Ali Tahir, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 31.1.2024.
Judgment
Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, J.--By this single judgment, we proceed to decide Criminal Appeal No. 67340 of 2019 titled ‘Mubashar alias Major vs. The State & another’, filed by Mubashar alias Major (appellant) against his conviction & sentence, PSLA No. 73090 of 2019 titled ‘Bashir Muhammad vs. Arslan & 04 others’ filed by Bashir Muhamamd complainant against acquittal of Arslan, Akhtar, Tanzeel alias Faisal and Muhammad Rafique alias Fiqo (respondent Nos. 1 to 4) and Murder Reference No. 06 of 2020 titled ‘The State vs. Mubashar alias Major’, sent by the learned trial Court for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of Death awarded to Mubashar alias Major (appellant). We proceed to decide all these matters by this single judgment as these have arisen out of the same judgment dated 31.10.2019 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ferozewala District Sheikhupura.
The appellant, namely, Mubashar alias Major along with Muhammad Rafique alias Fiqu (co-accused since acquitted), Arslan (co-accused since acquitted), Akhtar (co-accused since acquitted) and Tanzeel alias Faisal (co-accused since acquitted) was tried in a private complaint lodged by Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1) for offences under Sections 302/148/149 of PPC, in respect of case FIR No. 364 dated 29.07.2018 registered at Police Station City Muridke District Sheikhupura. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 31.10.2019 has convicted and sentenced Mubashar alias Major appellant as under:
Under Section 302(b), PPC to ‘Death as tazir’ for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Tariq Mehmood (deceased). He was also ordered to pay Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) to the legal heirs of Tariq Mehmood (deceased) as compensation under Section 544-A of Cr.P.C., recoverable as arrears of land revenue, and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
The learned trial Court however, acquitted Muhammad Rafique alias Fiqu, Arslan, Akhtar and Tanzeel alias Faisal co-accused while extending them the benefit of doubt.
3. Brief facts of the case as given by Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1) in his complaint (Exh.PA) are that the accused persons were close friends. On 29.07.2018 at 02:00p.m., Mubashar alias Major (appellant) along with Arslan (co-accused since acquitted) & Muhammad Rafique alias Fiqu (co-accused since acquitted) came to the shop of the son of the complainant, namely, Tariq Mehmood (deceased), where the deceased was present along with his brother, namely, Muhammad Dilawar (PW-2). The accused persons demanded cold drinks from the sons of the complainant as the aforementioned accused persons used to take cold drinks and ‘paawn’ from the abovementioned shop on debt. Tariq Mehmood (deceased) demanded the earlier outstanding debt from the accused before giving them the cold drinks whereupon, accused persons became infuriated and returned while given threats and they would take revenge of their humiliation and would not let him (Tariq Mehmood deceased) alive. On the same day i.e., on 29.07.2017 at about 04:00 p.m., Mubashar alias Major (appellant) armed with carbine .12 bore, Arslan (co-accused since acquitted) armed with pistol 30 bore, Muhammad Rafique alias Fiqu (co-accused since acquitted) armed with pistol 30 bore, Akhtar (co-accused since acquitted) armed with pistol 30 bore and Tanzeel alais Faisal (co-accused since acquitted) armed with pistol 30 bore came and started abusing the sons of the complainant, namely, Tariq Mehmood (deceased) and Muhammad Dilawar (PW-2) and raised ‘lalkaras’ to Tariq Mehmood (deceased) that he should try to save his life, they (accused) would not let him live due to not giving the bottles on debt and for demanding the earlier debt. All the accused persons started aerial firing whereupon people around the locality gathered there and the accused persons raised ‘lalkara’ that if anyone would come near then he shall be done to death. Arslan (co-accused since acquitted) pointed his pistol at Muhammad Dilawar (PW-2) while stating that don’t move otherwise, he shall be killed and thereafter, Arslan (co-accused since acquitted) gave beating to Dilawar (PW-2). On hearing the noise of firing, he (complainant) came out of his house, situated near the shop upon which Akhtar (co-accused since acquitted) pointed his pistol on him (complainant) and forcibly stopped him. Muhammad Rafique alias Fiku (co-accused since acquitted) pointed his pistol at Tariq Mehmood (deceased) while stating that if he (Tariq Mehmood deceased) will make any movement then he shall be killed, as they (accused party) had come to kill him (Tariq Mehmood deceased). Mubashar alias Major (appellant) thereafter made fire shot with his Carbine .12 bore which landed on the abdomen of Tariq Mehmood (deceased). Tanzeel alias Faisal (co-accused since acquitted) pointed his pistol at Kausar Hussain (given up PW), who also attracted to the spot from his house on hearing the noise of firing. Tariq Mehmood (deceased) fell on the ground due to sustaining injury at his abdomen at the hands of Mubashar alias Major (appellant). The complainant party caught hold of Mubashar alias Major (appellant) at the spot along with Carbine and the police was informed about the occurrence who attracted to the spot and apprehended Mubashar alias Major (appellant) along with Carbine at the spot. Remaining accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence. Tariq Mehmood (deceased) in injured condition was shifted to THQ Hospital, Muridke where he succumbed to the aforementioned injury.
Motive behind the occurrence was that Mubashar alias Major (appellant) oftenly used to take different items from the shop of the sons of the complainant on debt and on the day of occurrence, Tariq (deceased) demand the amount of debt from the Mubashar alias Major (appellant) upon which the appellant committed the occurrence along with his co-accused.
Initially FIR (FIR No. 364 dated 29.07.2018 offences under Sections 302/148/149 of PPC Police Station City Muridke District Sheikhupura) was lodged however, being dis-satisfied with the police investigation, Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1) lodged the private complaint (Exh.PA).
4. Mubashar alias Major appellant was arrested by the police on 13.08.2018 by Abdul Hameed, Sub Inspector/I.O (CW-7). On 24.08.2018, Mubashar alias Major (appellant) made disclosure and led to the recovery of Carbine (P-2) vide recovery memo (Exh.PD). After completion of investigation, the challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, after observing legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge against Mubashar alias Major (appellant) along with his co-accused on 30.04.2019, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution produced four witnesses during the trial and seven witnesses (CW-1 to CW-7) were produced as Court Witnesses. The prosecution also produced documentary evidence in the shape of (Exh.PA to Exh.PG), as well as, (Exh.CW-1/A to Exh.CW-7/H).
The statements of Mubashar alias Major (appellant) and his co-accused were recorded under Section 342 of Cr.P.C. The appellant & his co-accused refuted the allegations levelled against them and professed their innocence. While answering to a question that ‘Why this case against you and why the PWs & CWs have deposed against you?” Mubashar alias Major appellant replied as under:
“My name has been introduced in this case falsely just only to blackmail and harass me. I have nothing to do with the alleged occurrence by any means and PWs and CWs deposed against me only on party fiction just only to blackmail and harass me”
The appellant neither opted to make his statement on oath as envisaged under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., nor produced any evidence or witness in his defence.
The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 31.10.2019 found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned and detailed above however, acquitted Muhammad Rafique alias Fiqu, Arslan, Akhtar and Tanzeel alias Faisal co-accused while extending them the benefit of doubt.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is absolutely innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case of un-seen occurrence by the complainant; that as per site- plan Ex.CW-1/A, the distance between the appellant and the deceased was 5-feet, whereas according to the medical evidence, there was blackening and burning around entry wound of the deceased, which contradicts the ocular account of the prosecution; that the carbine .12-bore (P-2), was planted against the appellant to strengthen the weak prosecution case; that motive has also not been proved in this case by the prosecution; that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant may be accepted and he (appellant) may be acquitted from the charge.
6. On the other hand, it is contended by learned Additional Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of any doubt; that the FIR was promptly lodged and the evidence of the prosecution could not be shaken, despite lengthy cross-examination; that the prosecution case is also corroborated by the recovery of carbine .12-bore (P-2) and positive PFSA report (Ex.PF); that the motive of the prosecution case is also proved through reliable evidence of prosecution witnesses; that there is no substance in the appeal filed by the appellant, therefore, the same may be dismissed and the criminal revision filed by the complainant may be accepted.
Insofar as Criminal PSLA No. 73090 of 2019, filed by the complainant against the acquittal of Arslan, Akhtar, Tanzeel alias Faisal and Muhammad Rafique alias Fiqu (Respondents No. 1 to 4), is concerned, it is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that Respondents No. 1 to 4, were specifically named in a promptly lodged FIR, with the specific roles, that the abovementioned respondents have wrongly been acquitted by the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment; that the impugned judgment of the learned trial Court to the extent of acquittal of abovementioned respondents is against the law and facts of the present case, therefore, the same may be set aside and the above-mentioned respondents be convicted and sentenced in accordance with the law.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. The occurrence in this case took place on 29.07.2018 at 04.00 p.m, within the area of Mushtaq Park Muridke, District Sheikhupura which was situated at a distance of two kilometers from the police station. The matter was reported to the police by Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1) through written complaint and the formal FIR (Ex.CW-2/B) was also lodged on the same day i.e., on 29.07.2018 at 06.15 p.m. within a period of 2-hours and 15-minutes of the occurrence. Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, the time of occurrence, the place of occurrence and its distance from the police station, we are of the view that there was no deliberate or conscious delay in lodging the FIR and the same was promptly lodged.
9. The ocular account of the prosecution was furnished by Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1), Dilawar (PW-2) and Master Muhammad Shafique (PW-3). Insofar as Master Muhammad Shafique (PW-3), is concerned, we have noted that the name of the said witness was not mentioned in the FIR and his name was first time introduced by the prosecution at the time of filing of private complaint (Ex.PA) by the complainant, which was filed on 25.10.2018, i.e., after three months from the occurrence. The said witness did not appear before the Investigating Officer for recording his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and no such statement was available on the record. We are, therefore, of the view that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of Master Muhammad Shafique (PW-3).
Although we discarded the evidence of Master Muhammad Shafique (PW-3) but if his evidence is taken out of consideration even then their remains the evidence of eye-witnesses namely Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and Dilawar (PW-2). In is by now well settled that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which weighs with the Courts to decide any case. Reliance in this respect may be placed on the case reported as “Lal Khan vs. The State (2006 SCMR 1846). Under the circumstances, if the statement of Master Muhammad Shafique (PW-3), is taken out of consideration even then their remains the statements of Bashir Muhammad (PW-1) and Dilawar (PW-2). Their names were duly mentioned in the contents of a promptly lodged FIR as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Tariq Mehmood (deceased), was real son of Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and real brother of Dilawar (PW-2). Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1), has stated in the contents of the FIR, as well as, in his statement recorded by the learned trial Court that he was a retired employee of Pakistan Railways. His sons namely Tariq Mehmood (deceased) and Dilawar (PW-2), had established a shop of Pan and cigarettes etc to earn their livelihood. On the day of occurrence, he was also present at the abovementioned shop along with his sons, when the occurrence took place. The occurrence in this case took place in-front of the shop of the complainant party situated in Mushtaq Park Muridke, District Sheikhupura. Both the abovementioned eye-witnesses namely Bashir Muhammad, complainant (PW-1) and Dilawar (PW-2), are also resident of the same locality i.e., Mushtaq Park Murdike, where the occurrence took place, therefore, their presence at their shop at the time of occurrence cannot be termed as un-natural or improbable rather the same is quite natural. The occurrence in this case took place in the broad-day light i.e., on 29.07.2018 at 04.00 p.m (day time). Mubashar alias Major (appellant), was also resident of the same locality i.e., Mushtaq Park, Muridke and was a customer of the complainant party and as such he was earlier known to the abovementioned prosecution eye-witnesses, therefore, there was no chance of any misidentification of the appellant during the occurrence by the prosecution eye-witnesses. Both the abovementioned eye-witnesses were cross-examined at length by the learned defence counsel but their evidence could not be shaken and nothing favourable to the appellant could be brought on the record. They remained consistent on all material aspects of the case, like the time of occurrence, the place of occurrence, the weapon used by the appellant, the manner in which the occurrence took place etc. Their evidence is trustworthy and confidence inspiring.
10. The medical evidence of the prosecution was furnished by Dr. Muhammad Faisal Iqbal (CW-3). He stated that on 30.07.2018, at 1.00 a. (night), he conducted postmortem examination on the dead-body of Tariq Mehmood (deceased) and found an entry wound on the abdomen of the deceased. He further stated that pallets were recovered from the dead-body of the deceased, which supports the ocular account of the prosecution, according to which the appellant was armed with .12-bore carbine and he made a fire shot at the abdomen of the deceased with the help of said carbine.
Although it has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that as per site-plan (Ex.CW-1/A), the distance between the appellant and the deceased was 5-feet, whereas according to the medical evidence, there was blackening and burning around entry wound of the deceased, which contradicts the ocular account of the prosecution but there is no substance in the abovementioned argument of learned counsel for the appellant because as per site-plan (Ex.CW-1/A), the appellant was at a distance of only 5-feet from the deceased. Moreover, the appellant and the deceased might have changed their positions at the time of occurrence as they were not static objects, therefore, no benefit could be extended to the appellant on the abovementioned ground. Dr. Muhammad Faisal Iqbal (CW-3), was also cross examined at length but nothing favourable to the appellant could be brought on the record. His evidence has fully supported the ocular account of the prosecution.
11. The prosecution has also produced the evidence qua recovery of .12-bore carbine (P-2), at the pointing out of the appellant and the positive report of PFSA (Ex.PG). According to the prosecution case, as brought on the record through Abdul Hameed SI (PW-2), one empty was recovered from the spot on 29.07.2018 and the same was deposited in the office of PFSA on 30.07.2018, whereas the appellant was arrested in this case on 13.08.2018 and .12-bore carbine (P-2), was recovered at the pointing out of the appellant on 24.08.2018, which was deposited in the office of PFSA on 06.09.2018 and according to the report of PFSA (Ex.PG), the empty recovered from the spot was found to be fired from .12-bore carbine (P-2) but we have noted that Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1), as well as, Dilawar (PW-2), both have stated in their examination-in-chiefs recorded by the learned trial Court that Mubashar Hussain alias Major (appellant) was apprehended at the spot by Dilawar (PW-2) and Naveed (PW since given up) and he was handed over to the police. They further stated that a .12-bore carbine was also recovered from the possession of the appellant at the time of his arrest. The said stance of the prosecution eye-witnesses is in-conflict with the stance of Abdul Hameed SI/Investigating Officer (CW-7), who has given the date of arrest of the appellant as 13.08.2018 and the date of recovery of .12-bore carbine at the pointing out of the appellant as 24.08.2018 and as such there are material contradictions in the prosecution case qua the arrest of the appellant and recovery of .12-bore carbine, as well as, its date and place of recovery. Moreover, the statements of Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and Dilawar (PW-3), show that .12-bore carbine was recovered on the day of occurrence i.e., on 29.07.2018 and on the same day the empty was also recovered from the spot, whereas the said empty was deposited in the office of PFSA on 30.07.2018, which means that the empty and .12-bore carbine were kept together at the police station, therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the abovementioned pieces of evidence of the prosecution as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Jehangir vs. NazarFarid and another” (2002 SCMR 1986), “Barkat Ali vs. Muhammad Asif and others” (2007 SCMR 1812), “Mushtaq and 3 others vs. The State” (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 1), “Mureed Hussain vs. The State through Prosecutor-General Sindh” (2014 SCMR 1689).
12. According to the statement of Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1), the motive behind the occurrence was as under:
“All three accused made a demand of cold drinks. My son Tariq Mehmood asked them to make his previous payment first, otherwise he will not sell them cold drinks and cigarettes on debit. Accused while extending threats of dire consequences to my son went away”
Same motive was alleged by Dilawar (PW-2). It is evident from the perusal of the statements of Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and Dilawar (PW-2), that the motive was jointly alleged against Mubashar alias Major (appellant), Rafique alias Fique and Arslan (co-accused since acquitted). No specific motive was alleged against Mubashar alias Major (appellant). The abovementioned co-accused have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court and the PSLA filed by the complainant against their acquittal has also been dismissed by this Court today due to the reasons mentioned below in Paragraph No. 17, of this judgment. We have further noted that neither any specific amount has been mentioned by any PW, which was outstanding against the accused persons nor any khata or register showing the articles like cigarette or pan etc taken on debt by the accused persons from the complainant party was bought on the record. Moreover, it is not clear from the prosecution evidence that as to who out of the abovementioned three accused persons purchased cigarettes or pan etc on loan from the complainant party. We are, therefore, of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged Motive.
13. We have disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution regarding recovery of .12-bore carbine (P-2), at the pointing out of the appellant and the motive, however, if the prosecution evidence qua the recovery of .12-bore carbine (P-2), at the pointing out of the appellant and the motive is excluded from consideration even then there is sufficient incriminating evidence available on the record against the appellant to prove the prosecution case against him. As discussed earlier, the prosecution case has been proved through reliable evidence of eye-witnesses namely Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and Dilawar (PW-2). They stood the test of lengthy cross-examination but their evidence could not be shaken regarding the role played by Mubashar alias Major (appellant) during the occurrence. The ocular account of the prosecution as given by Bashir Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and Dilawar (PW-2), about the role of the appellant is fully supported by the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Muhammad Faisal Iqbal (CW-3), as well as, by the post-mortem report and pictorial diagrams of the deceased (Ex.CW/3), therefore, we hold that the prosecution has proved its case against Mubashar alias Major (appellant) beyond the shadow of any doubt.
14. Now coming to the question of quantum of sentence, we are of the view that it is not a case of capital punishment because, we have noted some mitigating circumstances in favour of Mubashar alias Major (appellant). Firstly, we have disbelieved the recovery of .12-bore carbine (P-2), at the pointing out of the appellant due to the reasons mentioned in Para No. 11 of this judgment, secondly, the prosecution has alleged a specific motive against the appellant but
has failed to prove the same, in the light of grounds mentioned in Para No. 12 of this judgment. It is, therefore, not determinable in this case that as to what was the real cause of occurrence and as to what had actually happened between the appellant and the deceased before the occurrence which had resulted into the aforementioned unfortunate incident, therefore, in our view the death sentence awarded to Mubashar alias Major (appellant) is quite harsh. While treating it a case of mitigation, we have fortified our view by a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in the case of Ahmad Nawaz and another v. The State (2011 SCMR 593), wherein, at page 604, the Hon’ble Apex Court of the country, has been pleased to lay emphasis as under:
“10. The recent trend of the Courts with regard to the awarding of penalty is evident from several precedents. In the case of Iftikhar-ul-Hassan v. Israr Bashir and another (PLD 2007 SC 111), it was held that “This is settled law that provisions of Section 306 to 308, PPC attracts only in the cases of Qatl-i-amd liable to Qisas under Section 302 (a), PPC and not in the cases in which sentence for Qatl-i-amd has been awarded as Tazir under section 302 (b), PPC. The difference of punishment for Qatl-e-amd as Qisas and Tazir provided under Section 302 (a) and 302(b), PPC respectively is that in a case of Qisas, Court has no discretion in the matter of sentence whereas in case of Tazir Court may award either of the sentence provided under Section 302(b), PPC and exercise of this discretion in the case of sentence of Tazir would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no cavil to the proposition that an offender is absolved from sentence of death by way of qisas if he is minor at the time of occurrence but in a case in which qisas is not enforceable, the Court in a cate of Qatl-e-Amd, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, award the offender the punishment of death or imprisonment for life by way of Tazir. The proposition has also been discussed in Ghulam Muretaza v. State (2004 SCMR 4), Faqir Ullah v. Khalil-uz-Zaman (1999 SCMR 2203), Muhammad Akram v. State (2003 SCMR 855) and Abdus Salam v. State (2000 SCMR 338)”. The Court while maintaining the conviction under Section 302(b) РРС awarded him sentence of life imprisonment under the same provision and also granted him the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. In Muhammad Riaz and another vs. The State (2007 SCMR 1413) while considering the penalty for an act of commission of Qatl-e-Amd it was observed that “No doubt, normal penalty for an act of commission of Qatl-i-Amd provided under law is death, but since life imprisonment also being a legal sentence for such offence must be kept in mind wherever the facts and circumstances warrant mitigation of sentence, because no hard and fast rule can be applied in each and every case”.
(In Iftikhar Ahmad Khan v. Asghar Khan and another (2009 SCMR 502) it has been noted that:-
“In other words, the law has conferred discretion upon the Court to withhold the penalty of death and to award the punishment of imprisonment for life, if the outlook of a particular case requires that course”. (underlining, italic and bold supplied).”
15. In the light of above discussion, the conviction of Mubashar alias Major (appellant) under Section 302(b), PPC awarded by the learned trial Court is maintained but his sentence is altered from the death to imprisonment for life. The compensation awarded by the learned trial Court and sentence in default thereof are maintained and upheld. The benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is also given to the appellant.
16. Consequently, with the above modification in the sentence of Mubashar alias Major (appellant), Criminal Appeal No. 67340 of 2019 filed by Mubashar alias Major (appellant) is hereby dismissed. Murder Reference No. 06 of 2020 is answered in the NEGATIVE and the sentence of death of Mubashar alias Major (convict) is NOT CONFIRMED.
17. Insofar as PSLA No. 73090 of 2019 filed by Bashir Muhammad Complainant (PW-1) against the acquittal of Arslan, Akhtar, Tanzeel alias Faisal and Muhammad Rafique alias Fiqu (respondent Nos. 1 to 4) is concerned, it is noteworthy that the prosecution eye-witnesses alleged that at the time of occurrence Muhammad Rafique alias Fiqu (Respondent No. 4), caught hold Tariq Mehmood (deceased), where-after Mubashar alias Major (appellant), made a fire shot with .12-bore carbine on the deceased, whereas the remaining accused-respondents also caught hold other PWs of the complainant party. It does not appeal to a prudent mind that Muhammad Rafique alias Fiqu (Respondent No. 4), will catch hold Tariq Mehmood (deceased), when his co-accused namely Mubashar alias Major was going to make a fire shot at the deceased with .12-bore carbine because in that case there was every possibility of sustaining a fatal injury by him on his own body. Neither any weapon was recovered at the pointing out of Respondents No. 1 to 4 nor any specific motive was alleged against them. A joint and general motive was alleged by the prosecution which has already been disbelieved by us due to the reasons mentioned in Paragraph No. 12, of this judgment. Moreover, the abovementioned accused persons were not assigned any injury on the body of Tariq Mehmood (deceased) or on the body of any member of the complainant party. Learned trial Court after assigning valid reasons, acquitted the abovementioned accused/respondents vide the impugned judgment. It is by now well settled that after acquittal from a Court of competent jurisdiction, an accused enjoys double presumption of innocence and very strong and exceptional grounds are required to interfere with the judgment of acquittal of an accused by the Court but no such ground has been pointed out by learned counsel for the complainant therefore, PSLA No. 73090 of 2019 has no merits hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Appeal dismissed
0 Comments