PLJ 2025 Cr.C. (Note) 196
[Sindh High Court, Circuit Hyderabad]
Present: Muhammad Saleem Jessar, J.
WAHID BUX--Appellant
versus
ABDUL HAFEEZ and others--Respondents
Crl. Acq. A. No. S-205 & Crl. Acq. A. No. S-76 of 2016,
heard on 5.11.2019.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 186)--
- بری کرنے کی اپیل--استغاثہ ملزمان/مدعا علیہان کے خلاف معقول شک سے بالاتر ہو کر اپنا مقدمہ ثابت کرنے میں کامیاب نہیں ہو سکا--لہذا ٹرائل کورٹ نے بجا طور پر مدعا علیہان/ملزمان کو شک کا فائدہ دیتے ہوئے بری کر دیا--اس بات پر زور دینے کی ضرورت نہیں کہ قانون کا یہ مسلمہ اصول ہے کہ ملزم شک کا فائدہ حاصل کرنے کا حقدار ہے، بطور حق، نہ کہ بطور مہربانی یا رعایت--موجودہ کیس میں استغاثہ کے گواہوں کے بیانات میں متعدد تضادات ہیں جو استغاثہ کے مقدمے میں شکوک و شبہات پیدا کرتے ہیں، اس طرح ٹرائل کورٹ نے بجا طور پر ملزمان کو ان شکوک کا فائدہ دیا--یہاں تک کہ کسی ملزم کو شک کے فائدے سے محض اس وجہ سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا کہ صرف ایک ایسی صورتحال ہے جو استغاثہ کی کہانی میں شک پیدا کرتی ہے--یہ نہ تو شہادت کو غلط پڑھنے کا معاملہ ہے اور نہ ہی اسے نہ پڑھنے کا، بلکہ اس کے برعکس شہادت کو اس کے صحیح تناظر میں اور پاکستان کی معزز سپریم کورٹ کی جانب سے بری کرنے کو برقرار رکھنے کے طے شدہ اصولوں کے مطابق سراہا گیا ہے--کوئی غیر قانونی یا کمزوری نشاندہی نہیں کی جا سکی جس کی بنا پر متنازعہ فیصلے میں مداخلت کی جائے جو کہ بے عیب ہونے کی وجہ سے convincing اور cogent استدلال کے بغیر تبدیل نہیں کیا جا سکتا جس کی سخت کمی ہے--اپیلیں خارج کر دی گئیں۔
----Ss. 324, 427, 114, 147, 149 & 337-H(ii)--Acquittal appeal--The prosecution could not succeed in proving its case against accused/respondents beyond shadow of reasonable doubt--As such trial Court has rightly acquitted respondents/accused by extending them benefit of doubt--Needless to emphasize well settled principle of law that accused is entitled to be extended benefit of doubt as a matter of right and not as a grace or concession--In present case, there are various contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses which create doubts in prosecution case, thus trial Court had rightly extended benefit of such doubts to accused--Even an accused cannot be deprived of benefit, of doubt merely because there is only one circumstance which creates doubt in prosecution story--It is neither a case of misreading of evidence nor non-reading, of it evidence but on contrary evidence has been appreciated in its true perspective and in accordance with principles laid down by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan qua settled principles for maintaining acquittal--No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out warranting interference in judgment impugned which being unexceptionable cannot be reversed without convincing and cogent reasoning which is badly lacking--Appeals dismissed. [Para 24 & 25] A & D
1995 SCMR 1345 and 2010 SCMR 222.
Acquittal--
یہ قانون کا ایک طے شدہ اصول ہے کہ اعلیٰ عدالتیں کسی بری کرنے کے حکم میں مداخلت کرتے ہوئے احتیاط سے کام لیتی ہیں، اِس صورت میں جب تک کہ بری کرنے کی وجوہات غلط، مکمل طور پر غیر منطقی یا غیر معقول نہ ہوں۔
---- It is a settled principle of law that superior Courts act slowly in interfering with an order of acquittal, unless grounds for acquittal are perverse, wholly illogical or unreasonable. [Para 24] B
1993 SCMR 305.
Acquittal--
یہ ایک طے شدہ قانون ہے کہ بری ہونے کے بعد ملزم ہمیشہ اپنی بے گناہی کا دوہرا حقدار ہو جاتا ہے اور اس اصول کو معزز سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان نے برقرار رکھا ہے۔
---- It is settled law that accused after getting acquittal always earn double presumption of his innocence and this rule was maintained by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. [Para 25] C
PLD 1994 SC 301.
Mr. Altaf Sachal Awan, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. Nazar Mohammad Memon, Addl. P.G, Sindh for State.
M/s. Lashari Law Associates Mr. Rizwan Ali Lashari, Advocate for Respondents.
Dates of hearing: 5.11.2019.
Judgment
By this single judgment I propose to dispose of above said two Cr. Acq. Appeals as both appeals have arisen from one and the same judgment passed by the trial Court.
By means of Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. S-205 of 2016 appellant/ complainant Wahid Bux son of Sajan has assailed Judgment dated 24.11.2016 passed by learned Assistant Sessions Judge-1, Kotri in Sessions Case No. 223 of 2014 (Re: The State vs. Abdul Hafeez & others), arising out of F.I.R. No. 87 of 2014 registered at P.S Jamshoro under Sections 324, 427, 114, 147, 149, 337-H-(ii), PPC, whereby he acquitted respondents No. 1 to 5 in the said Criminal Case. By the same judgment dated 24.11.2016 the trial Court convicted respondent No. 1 namely, Taufique son of Abdul Hafeez in Cr. Acquittal Appeal No. 76 of 2017, who challenged his conviction by filing Cr. Appeal No. 12 of 2016 which was allowed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamshoro @ Kotri vide judgment dated 28.03.2017. The said judgment of acquittal has been impugned by appellant Wahid Bux in Cr. Acq. Appeal No. S-76 of 2017.
Briefly, the facts of prosecution case, as narrated in the FIR lodged by complainant Wahid Bux, are that he had matrimonial as well as property dispute with accused Abdul Hafeez and others. On 10.05.2014 there was a faisla of the parties before Nekmards Papoo Khoso and Niaz Khoso where both the parties came, but accused Abdul Hafeez Khoso and others did not accept the talks and while hurling hard words and issuing threats to complainant before nekmards, they went away. Thereafter, complainant along with his brothers Faqeer Bux and Karim Bux proceeded towards their house in a car. At about 1800 hours when they reached near Shakeel Petrol Pump, Indus highway, they saw accused Abdul Hafeez and Tofique armed with 222 rifles, accused Rafique armed with DBBL Gun, Gulo, Khadim Hussain and Abid Khoso armed with pistols standing there. Accused Abdul Hafeez on seeing complainant party instigated other accused not to spare them, on which accused Tofique & Khadim Hussain made straight fires upon complainant with intention to commit their murder. One fire shot hit on the head skin of complainant, while other one hit on his left shoulder and he fell down. Remaining accused made aerial firing and all the accused went away while making fires in the air. The brother of complainant brought him at hospital and after treatment he lodged FIR.
After registration of FIR usual investigation was carried out and challan was submitted before the Court of learned 2nd Civil Judge & JM Kotri wherein accused Abdul Hafeez, Muhammad Rafique and Gul Muhammad were shown on bail, while accused Toufique, Khadim Hussain and Abid were shown as absconders. Subsequently, accused Toufique, Khadim Hussain and Abid after getting pre-arrest bail joined the proceedings.
A formal Charge was framed against the accused vide Ex.2, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried vide their Pleas Ex.2/A to 2/F respectively.
In order to prove its case, prosecution examined complainant Wahid Bux at Ex.3, who produced copy of FIR as Ex.3/A. Mashir and eye witness Faqeer Bux was examined at Ex.4, who produced memo of injuries, memo of place of incident and memo of sealing of clothes of injured at Ex.4/A to 4/C. PW Karim Bux was examined at Ex.5, while I.O ASI Paharuddin was examined at Ex.6, who produced police letter and photographs of car as Ex.6/A & 6/B respectively. Dr. Waqar Ahmed was examined at Ex.7, who produced police letter for medical treatment and examination of injured as well as provisional and final medical certificates of injured Wahid Bux as Ex.7/A to 7/C. Thereafter, learned ADPP closed the side of prosecution vide his statement Ex.8.
Statement of accused under Section 342 Cr. P.C. was recorded vide Ex.9 to 14, wherein they denied the allegations leveled against them and professed their innocence, however, they neither examined themselves on oath nor led any evidence in their defence.
After formulating the points for determination, recording evidence of prosecution witnesses and hearing counsel for the parties, learned trial Court vide judgment dated 24.11.2016 acquitted respondents No. 1 to 5 in Cr.Acq. Appeal No. S-205 of 2016 and convicted respondent Taufique in Cr. Acq. Appeal No. S-76 of 2017, who was subsequently acquitted by the Appellate Court, hence the complainant/appellant has preferred instant Criminal Acquittal Appeals challenging acquittal of the aforesaid respondents/accused.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents/accused as well as learned A.P.G. appearing for the State and have gone through the material available on the record.
Mr. Altaf Sachal Awan, learned counsel for appellant in both appeals submitted that respondents had been nominated in FIR with specific role whereas Trial Court has convicted only respondent/ accused Toufique while acquitted rest of respondents in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. S-205 of 2016. He further submitted that respondent Toufique preferred Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2016 against his conviction and sentence before learned Sessions Judge, Jamshoro, who set aside the judgment of trial Court and acquitted respondent Toufique without appreciating evidence made available before him through record. Learned counsel further submitted that as a counterblast to the case filed by the appellant, respondents had also filed Direct Complaint No. 01 of 2014 which later on was brought on record as regular case being Sessions Case No. 457 of 2014. He focused upon Para-3 of Direct Complaint available at page 95 of Court file and submitted that presence of respondents had not been denied rather has been admitted by themselves, hence both the Courts below have committed error while acquitting the respondents.
Learned A.P.G. supported the appeals against acquittal and opposed impugned judgments passed by courts below.
On the other hand, M/s. Rizwan Ali Lasghari, Advocate files his Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No. 1 Abdul Hafeez, which was taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeals and submitted that courts below have committed no illegality while acquitting the respondents therefore, appeals against acquittal are meritless. He also submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, so also there are certain discrepancies /lacunas in the evidence. He lastly prayed for dismissal of the Acquittal Appeals.
From perusal of the contents of F.I.R. it seems that there is delay of more than 14 hours in lodging the F.I.R. as the incident allegedly took place on 10.05.2014 at 5.45 p.m. whereas F.I.R. was lodged on the next date i.e. 11.05.2014, at 8.30 p.m. According to complainant, after alleged incident he was admitted in hospital and police came in the hospital on the next date and asked him to lodge F.I.R. Hence after getting medical treatment he lodged the F.I.R. In the F.I.R. as well as in his evidence it has been stated that at the time of alleged incident complainant was accompanied by his two brothers namely Faqeer Bux and Karim Bux and all of them were brought by the police at the hospital, meaning thereby his said brothers were also eye-witnesses of the alleged incident, therefore, if it is presumed that complainant Wahid Bux was under treatment in the hospital as such he could not lodge F.I.R. on the same day, even then it has not been explained as to what prevented his two brothers namely Faqeer Bux and Karim from lodging the F.I.R. on the same day. Besides, the complainant in his evidence deposed that on the next date of the incident when he was lying admitted in the hospital, he went to police station and lodged FIR and after registration of FIR be returned back to hospital. If on the next date he could have lodged F.I.R. in injured condition as admittedly after lodging of FIR he went back to the hospital, then what prevented him to lodge the F.I.R. on the same day. He could have returned back to hospital on the said day also as he did on the next day.
In the case of Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 SC 1048) Honourable Supreme Court, with regard to delay in lodging FIR, has held as under:
“The unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. coupled with the presence of the elders of the area at the time of recording of F.I.R. leads to the inescapable conclusion that the F.I.R. was recorded after consultation and deliberation. The possibility of fabrication of a story and false implication thus cannot be excluded altogether. Unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. is an intriguing circumstance which tarnishes the authenticity of the F.I.R., casts a cloud of doubt on the entire prosecution case and is to be taken into consideration while evaluating the prosecution evidence. It is true that unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. is not fatal by itself and is immaterial when the prosecution evidence is strong enough to sustain conviction but it becomes significant where the prosecution evidence and other circumstances of the case tend to tilt the balance in favour of the accused.”
In view of unexplained delay in lodging of the F.I.R. in the instant case, possibility of false implication of the accused could not be excluded from consideration, more particularly in view of the fact that the complainant has also stated in the FIR as well as in evidence that there were disputes between him and accused persons on matrimonial affairs and landed property.
Besides, there are also certain contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The complainant Wahid Bux deposed that after the incident, they remained at the spot for about half an hour and thereafter police mobile came there and police brought them to LUMHS hospital Jamshoro, but the Investigating Officer made a different statement in his evidence to the effect that on 10.5.2014 he was present as duty incharge at P.S. Jamshoro and on the same day at about 1745 hours he received information on mobile phone that incident had taken place at Shakeel Petrol Pump and that injured had been shifted to LUMHS Jamshoro. Hence on receiving such information he went to LUMHS Jamshoro, where he inspected the injuries of injured Wahid Bux. He does claim to have reached the spot and taking the injured to LUMHS Jamshoro as deposed by the complainant and other alleged eye-witnesses.
Furthermore, the Medico Legal Officer namely, Dr. Waqar Ahmed deposed in his evidence deposed that injured Wahid Bux came to him alone along with police letter and remained with him for about 10 to 15 minutes during his medical examination. He categorically admitted, “he was not brought by anyone else.” which is contrary to the statements of the complainant, P.W. Faqeer Bux and P.W. Karim Bux that police had brought all of them at the hospital. Besides, the evidence of complainant /injured Wahid Bux is silent as to how he obtained police letter prior to coming at the hospital. ASI Paharuddin has contradicted such assertion of the complainant by deposing that he received information about the incident at 1745 hours and then he reached at the hospital, where he inspected the injuries sustained by the complainant and prepared memo of injuries. After that he issued letter for medical examination and certificate to MLO. He does not claim that complainant/injured had obtained letter for medical treatment and examination from him prior to his reaching at the hospital.
As such there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of complainant and I.O. ASI Paharuddin in respect of shifting of injured from place of incident to hospital, issuing of police letter for medical examination and certificate as well as lodging of FIR. Both of them have made contradictory statements to each other.
Besides above, the complainant Wahid Bux has also stated in his FIR that on the instigation of accused Abdul Hafeez, accused Toufique armed with 222 rifle and Khadim Hussain armed with pistol fired upon him with the result he sustained firearm injuries on the skin of his head and left shoulder, but in his evidence, complainant has stated that on the instigation of accused Abdul Hafeez accused Toufique made straight fires upon them with 222 rifle due to which he sustained two injuries one on his head and other on his left shoulder. Thereafter accused Khadim also made straight fires upon them while remaining accused made aerial firing. Thus, there is contradiction in the two statements of the complainant himself i.e. one made in the F.I.R. and other made in his evidence because as per his statement made in the F.I.R. he sustained one injury at the hands accused Taufique and one injury at the hands of accused Khadim Hussain, whereas as per his evidence, he sustained two injuries at the hands of accused Toufique. This is also material contradiction and creates doubts in the prosecution story.
The prosecution also examined PW Faqeer Bux and Karim Bux who are real brothers of complainant Wahid Bux as well as so called eye witnesses of alleged incident. PW Faqeer Bux has stated in his evidence that accused Abdul Hafeez was empty handed while remaining accused were carrying weapons but he has not explained as to what kinds of weapons remaining accused were holding. Besides, there is also contradiction in between the statements of these two witnesses vis.a.vis. the statement of complainant made in his evidence. inasmuch both, P. Ws Faqeer Bux as well as P.W. Karim Bux, deposed that accused Abdul Hafeez instigated others to kill complainant party whereupon accused Toufique and Khadim made straight firing upon them, however they rescued themselves by lying in the car, whereas complainant Wahid Bux sustained bullet injuries at the left side of his head and left side of his shoulder, meaning thereby complainant sustained one injury each at the hands of accused Taoufique and accused Khadim, which is contrary to the evidence of the complainant that he sustained two injuries at the hands of accused Toufique.
It has also been admitted by the complainant in his evidence that at the place of incident so many persons of the locality had gathered but no person from vicinity has been cited as witness of the alleged incident and all the witnesses are close relatives of the complainant/injured. This is also injurious to the prosecution case as it is settled principle of law that despite availability of disinterested witnesses, non-examination of such witnesses in the case gives inference that in case such witnesses had been examined, they would have deposed against the prosecution, as envisaged under Article 129(g) of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order 1984. In the case of Bashir Ahmed alias Manu vs. The State reported in 1996 SCMR 308 it was held by Honourable Supreme Court that despite presence of natural witnesses on the spot they were not produced in support of the occurrence an adverse inference under Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order could easily be drawn that had they been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution version. In another case reported as Mohammad Shafi vs. Tahirur Rehman (1972 SCMR 144) it was held that large number of persons had gathered at the place of occurrence but prosecution failing to produce single disinterested witness in support of its case, therefore no implicit reliance could be placed on evidence of interested eye-witnesses. In the case reported in 1980 SCMR 708, it was observed that no witness of locality nor owner of hotel was produced in support of prosecution case nor any independent evidence to corroborate testimony of the three eye-witnesses was produced, as such, the acquittal was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court.
It is also significant to point out here that I.O. of the case ASI Pahauruddin has made certain material admissions in his cross-examination, which put dents in the prosecution case. He admitted that place of incident was a populated area; that he did not seal the blood-stained shirt of complainant, that same persons had acted as mashirs in all the mashirnamas i.e. P.Ws Faqeer Mohammad Sajjan, who are real brother and nephew of the complainant respectively. He also admitted that he did not record statement of any independent person during investigation and that he did not prepare memo of inspection of the car wherein the complainant allegedly sustained firearm injuries.
In view of above contradictions and lacunas/flaws in the prosecution case, it can safely be held that the prosecution could not succeed in proving its case against the accused/respondents beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. As such the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused by extending them benefit of doubt. Needless to emphasize the well settled principle of law that the accused is entitled to be extended benefit of doubt as a matter of right and not as a grace or concession. In the present case, there are various contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which create doubts in the prosecution case, thus the trial Court had rightly extended benefit of such doubts to the accused. Even an accused cannot be deprived of benefit of doubt merely because there is only one circumstance which creates doubt in the prosecution story. In the case reported as Tariq Pervaiz vs. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:
“The concept of benefit of doubt to an accused person is deep-rooted in our country. For giving him benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right.”
It would be pertinent to point out at this stage that the consideration for deciding a Criminal Appeal against acquittal are quite difference from that of a Criminal Appeal against conviction as in the former case presumption of double innocence of the accused is available in the case. It is a settled principle of law that the superior Courts act slowly in interfering with an order of acquittal, unless grounds for acquittal are perverse, wholly illogical or unreasonable.
In the case reported as Mirza Noor Hussain vs. Farooq Zaman and 2 others (1993 SCMR 305) it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court as under:
“..... the judgment of the trial Court is supported by sound reasons and this Court cannot substitute its own findings in place thereof unless ....... that the findings .......... are ‘artificial’, ‘shocking, ‘ridiculous’, ‘based on misreading of evidence’ and ‘leading to miscarriage of justice”.”
In another case reported as Yar Mohammad and 3 others vs. The State (1992 SCMR 96) Honourable Supreme Court observed as under;
“Unless the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, completely illegal and on perusal of evidence no other decision can be given except that the accused is guilty, there has been complete misreading of evidence leading to miscarriage of justice, the High Court will not exercise jurisdiction under Section 417, Cr. P.C. In exercising this jurisdiction the High Court is always slow unless it feels that gross injustice has been done in the administration of criminal justice.”
In the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another vs. Mamraz Khan and others reported in PLD 1985 SC 11 it was held as under;
“......... The Courts often in such like difficult situation have applied test of “impossibility” by asking questions; whether it was impossible for any reasonable person to have held the impugned view on appreciation of evidence on account of which the acquittal took place.” and “The Court would not interfere with acquittal merely because on reappraisal of the evidence it comes to the conclusion different from that of the Court acquitting the accused provided both the conclusions are reasonably possible.” And “The important test visualized in these cases, in this behalf was that the findings sought to be interfered with, after scrutiny under the foregoing searching light, should be found wholly as artificial, shocking and ridiculous.”
It is settled law that accused after getting acquittal always earn double presumption of his innocence and this rule was maintained by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Muhammad Asghar and another versus The State (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 301). It will be conducive to reproduce relevant portion from the judgment, which reads as under;
“............ It has been the consistent view of this Court that there is double presumption of innocence in favour of an accused person who has secured acquittal; one, that, every accused shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved to be guilty and the other that a competent Court of law has adjudged him not guilty. The interference can only be made if the order of the Court below is manifestly wrong or perverse or is based on the view of the evidence which no judicial officer would take, or the Court has misread the evidence or important evidence has been ignored or that non-interference will result in miscarriage of justice. The mere fact that the appellate or revisional Court form a different opinion on the appraisal of evidence than the that arrived at by the trial Court will not justify setting aside the order of acquittal. Due weight has to be given to the conclusion of the trial Court. These considerations have to be kept in view both, in appeals against acquittal under Section 417, Cr.P.C. by the State as well as in criminal revisions under Section 439, Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant party as, in either case interference is sought with the order of acquittal, in the former the appellate Court can itself convert the acquittal into conviction while in the latter case the revisional Court can only order retrial and is not competent to pass sentence itself.”
The dictum laid down by the Apex Court in case of Ghulam Sikandar and another (Supra) was also maintained by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Haji Amanullah versus Munir Ahmed and others (2010 SCMR 222). The operative portion of the judgment impugned was reproduced by the Apex Court in case of Munir Ahmed and others (Supra) for ready reference, which reads as under:
“We have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the parties’ learned counsel and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as evidence on record. At the very outset, we may observe that order of acquittal is not liable to interference merely because on reappraisal of evidence this Court may come to a different conclusion than that of trial Court provided both conclusions are plausible in the particular facts and circumstances of the case. In the Instant case prosecution alleged that private respondents along with absconding accused cut down fruit bearing trees of the appellant and in the process they also caused damage to transformer by means of firing. Only independent witness produced was Shah Muhammad who had not implicated the respondent in commission of offence as according to him he could not identify the culprits except Hazrat Jan as they had ‘muffled their faces. In view of his categoric statement conviction on the basis of sole testimony of P.W.4 Shah Sanam cannot be sustained as admittedly he is grandson of appellant and interested witness due to civil dispute going on between the parties. Similarly; report of P.W.5 in absence of seizure of damaged articles and alleged cut down trees is of no consequences.”
On the touchstone of the criterion as mentioned hereinabove, I have gone through the material and examined the impugned judgment and feel that it is neither a case of misreading of evidence nor non-reading, of it evidence but on the contrary the evidence has been appreciated in its true perspective and in accordance with the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan qua settled principles for maintaining acquittal. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out warranting interference in the judgment impugned which being unexceptionable cannot be reversed without convincing and cogent reasoning which is badly lacking.
The upshot of above discussion is that aforesaid discrepancies and contradictions create serious doubts in the prosecution case therefore the Courts below rightly passed the impugned judgment thereby acquitting the accused/respondents. Consequently, by short orders dated 05.11.2019 both the Criminal Acquittal Appeals were dismissed and the judgment of acquittal impugned in Cr. Acquittal Appeal No. S-205 of 2016 was maintained to the extent of acquittal of respondents Abdul Hafeez, Mohammad Rafique, Gul Mohammad, Khadim Hussain and Abid, whereas the judgment of acquittal impugned in Cr. Acquittal Appeal No. S-76 of 2017 was also maintained to the extent of acquittal of respondent Toufique Ahmed.
Above are the reasons for the said short orders.
(A.A.K.) Appeals dismissed
0 Comments