PLJ 2025 Cr.C. (Note) 256
[Lahore High Court Lahore]
Present: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 77643-J, PSLA No. 77639 & Crl. Rev. No. 77641 of 2019, decided on 10.10.2024.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
شکایت درج کرنے میں تاخیر-استغاثہ نے اس طرح کی تاخیر کے لیے کوئی معقول استدلال نہیں دیا ہے جس کا مطلب ہے کہ ایف آئی آر میں چھوڑی گئی خامیوں کو پر کرنے کے لیے مناسب غور و فکر اور مشاورت کے بعد نجی شکایت کی شکایت درج کی گئی ہے ۔
----S. 302(b)--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--Delay in filing complaint--Prosecution has not given any plausible reasoning qua such delay meaning thereby private complaint plaint has been filed after due deliberation and consultation just to fill up lacunas left in FIR. [Para 4] A
PLD 2003 SC 14.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
چشم دید گواہ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ ۔ سزا اور سزا-- گواہوں کے غیر فعال طرز عمل سے مزاحمت نہ کرنے یا متوفی کو بچانے یا اپیل کنندہ کو بغیر کسی نقصان کے فرار ہونے دینے سے متعلقہ وقت پر جائے جرم پر ان کی موجودگی کے حوالے سے مزید معقول شک پیدا ہوا ہے ۔
----S. 302(b)--Eye-witness--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--The passive conduct of witnesses by not making resistance or rescuing deceased or letting appellant to escape unhurt has further created a reasonable doubt with regard to their presence at crime scene at relevant time. [Para 5] B
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
چیلنج-- گردشی ثبوت-- اب یہ طے ہو چکا ہے کہ اس طرح کے معاملات میں ہر صورت حال کو ایک دوسرے سے جوڑا جائے اور اسے ایسی مسلسل زنجیر بنانی چاہیے کہ اس کا ایک سرے سے لاش اور دوسرے سرے سے ملزم کی گردن کو چھوئے-لیکن اگر زنجیر میں کوئی ربط نہیں ہے تو اس کا فائدہ ملزم کو ملنا چاہیے ۔
----S. 302(b)--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Circumstantial evidence--It is settled by now that in such like cases every circumstance should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches dead body and other to neck of accused--But if any link in chain is missing then its benefit must go to accused. [Para 7] C
1992 SCMR 1047; 1996 SCMR 188 & PLJ 1999 SC 1018.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-
----S. 302(b)--Circumstantial evidence--Every piece of circumstantial evidence produced in this case by prosecution--It is noteworthy that circumstantial evidence of prosecution is based upon following pieces of evidence:
1) Evidence of Rescue 1122
2) Recoveries
3) Medical evidence. [Para 7] D
2008 SCMR 1103.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
طبی ثبوت-قطر-احمد-- سزا اور سزا-- چیلنج-- استغاثہ کے طبی ثبوت کا تعلق ہے ، اب یہ اچھی طرح سے طے ہو چکا ہے کہ طبی ثبوت ایک قسم کا معاون ثبوت ہے ، جو چوٹ کی وصولی ، چوٹ کی نوعیت ، واقعے میں استعمال ہونے والے ہتھیار کی قسم کے حوالے سے استغاثہ کے بیان کی تصدیق کر سکتا ہے لیکن یہ حملہ آور کی شناخت نہیں کرے گا ۔
----S. 302(b)--Medical evidence--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--The medical evidence of prosecution is concerned, it is by now well settled that medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm prosecution version with regard to receipt of injury, nature of injury, kind of weapon used in occurrence but it would not identify assailant. [Para 11] E
2018 SCMR 772; 2009 SCMR 916 & 2024 SCMR 1427.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
محرک-- قطر-- - مجرمانہ فقہ - یہ مجرمانہ فقہ کا ایک اچھی طرح سے طے شدہ اصول بھی ہے کہ اگر استغاثہ کوئی مقصد قائم کرتا ہے اور اسے ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہتا ہے ، تو یہ استغاثہ ہے جسے نقصان اٹھانا پڑتا ہے نہ کہ ملزم کو ۔
----S. 302(b)--Motive--Qatl-e-amd--Criminal jurisprudence--It is also a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that if prosecution sets up a motive and fails to prove it, then it is prosecution who has to suffer and not accused. [Para 12] F
2024 SCMR 156.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
چیلنج-- شک کی کمی-- گردشی ثبوت-- طبی ثبوت-- یہ قانون کا اب تک قائم شدہ اصول ہے کہ یہ استغاثہ ہے ، جسے اپنے پیروں پر کھڑے ہو کر ملزم کے خلاف اپنا مقدمہ ثابت کرنا ہے ، لیکن اس معاملے میں استغاثہ اپنی ذمہ داری نبھانے میں ناکام رہا ۔ منعقد: یہ قانون کا ایک قائم شدہ اصول بھی ہے کہ اگر کوئی ایک ایسا حالات ہے جو استغاثہ کے مقدمے کے حوالے سے شکوک و شبہات پیدا کرتا ہے ، تو وہی ملزم کو شکوک و شبہات کا فائدہ دینے کے لیے کافی ہے ، جبکہ فوری مقدمہ ایسے متعدد حالات سے بھرا ہوا ہے جس نے استغاثہ کی کہانی کے بارے میں سنگین شکوک و شبہات پیدا کیے ہیں ۔
----S. 302(b)--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Circumstantial evidence--Medical evidence--It is, by now well established principle of law that it is prosecution, which has to prove its case against accused by standing on its own legs, but in this case prosecution remained failed to discharge its responsibility--Held: It is also well established principle of law that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding prosecution case, same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to accused, whereas, instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about prosecution story. [Para 13] G & H
2024 SCMR 51; 2024 SCMR 1731 & 2024 SCMR 1782.
Peer Masood-ul-Hassan Chishti, Advocate (Defence Counsel) for Appellant.
Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, DPG for State.
Mr. Omais Nasir Bhatti, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 10.10.2024.
Judgment
Through this single judgment, I intend to decide Criminal Appeal No. 77643-J of 2019, filed by Zafar Iqbal, appellant against his convictions and sentences along with Crl. Revision No. 77641 of 2019 filed by Azam Farooq, complainant for enhancement of sentence of Zafar Iqbal (appellant) as well as Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 77639 of 2019, filed by Azam Farooq, complainant against acquittal of co-accused/Respondents No. 2 & 3 namely Imran and Azam being originated from judgment dated 30-11-2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pindi Bhattian in private complaint under Sections 302, 311, 201, 34, PPC emanated from case FIR No. 258 dated 26-07-2018 registered at Police Station Pindi Bhattian, whereby the trial Court while acquitting rest of the accused namely Imran and Azam, convicted and sentenced Zafar Iqbal, appellant for committing murder of Ayesha Bibi and child Ali as under:
Under Section 302(1), PPC
Imprisonment for Life on two counts for committing murders of Ayesha Bibi and child Ali with direction to pay compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-, on two counts to the legal heirs of deceased; in default thereof to undergo S.I. for six months. All the sentences awarded to appellant were ordered to run concurrently and the benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in his favour.
2. The prosecution story as given in the judgment of the trial Court reads as under:
“... 2. Azam Farooq complainant (PW.1) narrated the facts in his private complaint (Ex P.F) that he had got married his daughter Ayesha Bibi to accused Zafar Iqbal s/o Muhammad Aslam. From the wedlock of the two a baby boy of age of four months named Ali was born. Accused Zafar Iqbal was not treating his daughter in a befitting manner because of which his daughter was living with him. On 20.07.2018, accused Zafar Iqbal came to the complainant and asked for reunion of his daughter with him. On his request complainant sent his daughter along with said Zafar Iqbal on the same day. Thereafter, neither the accused nor his daughter contacted him. On 26.07.2018, the complainant (PW.1) along with Ghulam Rasool s/o Habib Ullah (PW.2), Imran alias Ikram s/o Karamit Ali (PW.3/given up) went to the house of the accused in the morning and they found neither the accused nor Ayesha Bibi. On coming out of the house of accused Zafar they came to know that accused Zafar Iqbal, Imran, Azam along with Ayesha Bibi and child Ali had gone to Canal Jhang Branch. Upon such information they went to Canal Jhang Branch where they saw that accused Imran s/o Ahmed and Azam s/o Aslam were asking to accused Zafar Iqbal while shouting that character of Ayesha Bibi was loose and the dhild was also result of illicit relations and they further asked to kill the two by throwing them in the canal; upon which Zafar Iqbal accused pushed his wife, who was holding minor child Ali in her hands, along with the minor in the canal. The complainant and his companions tried to move ahead in order to save his drowning daughter and grandson but the accused threatened them to kill if they moved forward. Thereafter, the complainant went to the police station where he got written application Ex.P.A for registration of FIR. Upon said application FIR No. 258/2018, offences under Section 302/311/201, PPC, was lodged with P.S. Sukheke Mandi. The I.O dishonestly let accused Imran and Azam free by treating them innocent. He only got sent accused Zafar Iqbal to the judicial lockup. The complainant had nominated all the three accused as they were his real culprits. Due to dishonest investigation on the part of the I.O. the complainant had filed instant private complaint Ex.P.F....”
3. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned defence counsel for the appellant as well as learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also examined the record with their assistance. For reappraisal of evidence, I have taken everything into my consideration in the light of arguments advanced by both the sides.
4. According to the prosecution case, the occurrence in this case took place early in the morning on 26-07-2018, and the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 02:20 p.m. but being dissatisfied with the police investigation, Azam Farooq, complainant (PW.1) filed private complaint (Exh.PF) on 15-09-2018 with the delay of 01 month and 20 days of the occurrence. Prosecution has not given any plausible reasoning qua such delay meaning thereby the private complaint plaint has been filed after due deliberation and consultation just to fill up the lacunas left in the FIR. I fortify my view from the dictum laid down in case law titled as “Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali and two other” (PLD 2003 SC 14).
5. In an attempt to make it a case of direct evidence against the appellant, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the statements of Azam Farooq, complainant (PW.1) and Ghulam Rasool (PW.2), who happened to be the real father and paternal cousin of Ayesha Bibi (deceased). The learned trial Court disbelieved the presence of the eye-witnesses, Azam Farooq, complainant (PW.1) and Ghulam Rasool (PW.2) at the site of the occurrence after a careful appraisal of their testimony, supported by cogent reason. According to the depositions of Azam Farooq, complainant (PW.1) and Ghulam Rasool (PW.2), they proceeded from Sheikhupura on 26-07-2018 at 3:00 a.m. (night) on motorcycle via Lahore Sargodha Road and covered a distance of about 60/65 kilometers for the purpose of reaching the house of in-laws of deceased daughter and it was admitted by them that there was no occasion of happiness or sorrow in the house of the appellant on the day of occurrence.
It is further noteworthy that conduct of the above mentioned eye-witnesses is highly unnatural. Neither in application for registration of FIR and in private complaint (Exh.PF), Azam Farooq, complainant (PW.1) stated that the appellant and co-accused Azam and Imran (since acquitted) were shown to be armed with pistol .30 bore at the time of occurrence to terrify the prosecution eye witnesses from saving their loved ones (deceased) when he (appellant) was allegedly being drowned Ayesha Bibi (deceased) and child Ali in the canal, then as to why the eye-witnesses did not interfere to rescue the deceased and why the eye-witnesses did not try to apprehend the accused persons. It was not much difficult for them to apprehend them. I have further noticed that Azam Farooq, complainant (PW.1) stated that all the eye-witnesses did not jump into the canal in order to save the drowning daughter and grandson but Ghulam Rasool (PW.2) stated in his cross-examination that they had jumped into the canal for that purpose. Thus, the passive conduct of the witnesses by not making resistance or rescuing the deceased or letting the appellant to escape unhurt has further created a reasonable doubt with regard to their presence at the crime scene at relevant time. I may refer here the case of “Liaqat Ali vs. The State” (2008 SCMR 95), wherein at Para No. 5-A of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to observe as under:-
“… Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, we note that although P.W.7 who is first cousin and brother-in-law of Fazil deceased claims to have seen the occurrence from a distance of 30 ft. (as given in cross-examination) and two other witnesses namely Musa and Ranjha were also attracted to the spot but none rescued Fazil deceased and appellant had a free hand to inflict as many as 9 injuries on his person. The explanation given by these witnesses that since Liaqat Ali had threatened them, therefore, they could not go near Fazil deceased to rescue him is repellant to common sense as Liaqauat Ali was not armed with a fire-arm which could have scared the witnesses away. He was a single alleged assailant and if the witnesses were there at the spot they could have easily overpowered him. This makes their presence at the spot doubtful ...”
I have further noted that no source of information has been described by the PWs to going of the accused and the deceased to the crime scene. It is also not acceptable to a prudent mind that on seeing the complainant and other eye-witnesses the appellant had pushed Ayesha Bibi and Ali minor (deceased) in the canal for the purpose of drowning them. The woman pushed into the canal did not react which is also beyond understanding. The above analysis makes the presence of the eye-witnesses at the crime scene doubtful, as concluded by the learned trial Court.
6. Moreover, it is not understandable that if direct evidence of eye-witnesses was available with the prosecution then as to why the circumstantial evidence through Imtiaz Ali, Control Room Incharge at Rescue 1122 Hafizabad (CW.7) and Aqeel Husnain (CW.8) were also produced in this case. It shows that the prosecution itself was doubtful about the credibility of evidence of above mentioned eye-witnesses, therefore, it also chose to produce circumstantial evidence in this case. I am, therefore, of the view that the evidence of above-mentioned prosecution witnesses is not worthy of reliance.
7. Insofar as the circumstantial evidence produced in this case by the prosecution is concerned, it is settled by now that in such like cases every circumstance should be linked with each other and it should form such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and other to the neck of the accused. But if any link in the chain is missing then its benefit must go to the accused. In this regard, guidance has been sought from the judgments of the Apex Court of the country reported as “Ch. Barkat Ali vs. Major KaramElahi Zia and another” (1992 SCMR 1047), “Sarfraz Khan vs. The State” (1996 SCMR 188) and “Asadullah and another vs. The State” (PLJ 1999 SC 1018). In the case of Ch. Barkat Ali (supra), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 1055, observed as under:
“….. Law relating to circumstantial evidence that proved circumstances must be incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. See Siraj vs. The Crown” (PLD 1956 FC 123). In a case of circumstantial evidence, the rule is that no link in the chain should be broken and that the circumstances should be such as cannot be explained away on any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused.”
In the case of Sarfraz Khan (supra), the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 192, held as under:
“7. …. It is well settled that circumstantial evidence should be so inter-connected that it forms such a continuous chain that its one end touches the dead body and other to the neck of the accused thereby excluding all the hypothesis of his innocence.”
Further reliance in this context is placed on the case of “Altaf Hussain vs. Fakhar Hussain and another” (2008 SCMR 1103) wherein, at page 1105 it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:-
“7. …. Needless to emphasis that all the pieces of evidence should be so linked that it should give the picture of a complete chain, one corner of which should touch the body of the deceased and other corner to the neck of the accused. Failure of one link will destroy the entire chain.”
Seeking guidance from the above-referred judgments of the Apex Court of the Country, I proceed to discuss separately, every piece of circumstantial evidence produced in this case by the prosecution. It is noteworthy that the circumstantial evidence of the prosecution is based upon the following pieces of evidence:
1) Evidence of Rescue 1122
2) Recoveries
3) Medical evidence
Evidence of Rescue 1122 officials
8. I have also noted that in order to strengthen the prosecution case, the prosecution also produced Imtiaz Ali, Control Room Incharge at Rescue 1122 Hafizabad (CW.7) and Aqeel Husnain (CW.8).
It is pertinent to mention here that according to the testimonies of Azam Farooq, complainant (PW.1), Ghulam Rasool (PW.2) as well as the Investigating Officer and the officials of rescue, who categorically stated that the dead body of drowned minor Ali could not be traced out. The appellant has taken the plea that it was an accident due to slipping of the motorcycle at turn on the road. The prosecution has examined Imtiaz Ali, Control Room Incharge at Rescue 1122 Hafizabad (CW.7), who on 26-07-2018 was posted at Rescue 1122 Hafizabad where a call was received at 5:40 a.m. and dispatcher dispatched emergency vehicle to the nearest station of the incident place. Paramedical staff provided First Aid to Zafar Iqbal, appellant and they took his vitals. The paramedical staff shifted the appellant to RHC, Sukheke Mandi and as per record the appellant was unconscious. According to the said C.W.7, the two documents i.e. (Exh.CW7/B and Ex.CW/7/G were not the record of Rescue 1122 Pindi Bhattian. He (CW.7) during his cross-examination further stated that keeping in view the critical condition of the patient the doctor referred him to DHQ, Hospital Hafizabad, lateron the patient was referred from DHQ. Hospital Hafizabad to Jinnah Hospital Lahore. He (CW.7) further stated that in (Exh.CW.7/A) this fact has not been mentioned that the responding vehicle had moved from Pindi Bhattian to the place of emergency. In said document, team of Rescue 1122 of Pindi Bhattian has not been mentioned.
The another witness of Rescue 1122 is Aqeel Husnain (CW.8), who filled up the report (Ex.CW7/A) and according to him the vitals of the appellant were not normal at their first response. The temperature of the appellant was a bit high from the normal. The victim was at that time unconscious and was not in a position to answer any query from them. He (CW.8) stated that he had not mentioned the fact of clothes of appellant being dry in (Exh.CW7/C). In column of comments of (Exh.CW7/C) the fact of dry clothes could be mentioned but he had not done the same as he felt no need in this respect.
Above all, Doctor Umar Farooq (CW.9), who conducted the medical examination of Zafar Iqbal, appellant and according to him the appellant was unconscious at that time. He (CW.9) referred him to DHQ, Hospital Hafizabad. According to him as per history given by rescue team it was a case of drowning. Moreover, according to the testimony of Doctor Ameer Hamza (CW.10), in referring slip (Ex.CW.9/A) words drowning case and word unconscious had been mentioned.
As stated above, the trial Court has already disbelieved the evidence of eye-witnesses as they were failed to justify their presence at the spot at the relevant time and the trial Court convicted the appellant on the basis of such a shaky circumstantial evidence. Nobody had seen the appellant while drowning both the deceased in the canal.
In the light of above discussion, the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution in shape of testimonies of Imtiaz Ali, Control Room Incharge at Rescue 1122 Hafizabad (CW.7) and Aqeel Husnain (CW.8) is not worthy of reliance.
Recoveries
9. So far as the recovery of motorcycle (P.1) vide seizure memo. (Exh.PB) is concerned, no registration number, colour, its company name has been described by the PWs. It is further noted that according to the testimony of Imdad Ullah, SI (CW.12), the officials of Rescue 1122 had been called by him on the first day and at that time they had made thorough search but nothing could be recovered from the place of occurrence. He (CW.12) further stated that the motorcycle had been recovered on the second day from the same place at the crime scene whereas according to the testimony of Azam Farooq, complainant (PW.1), the appellant had decamped from the crime scene on a motorcycle. In this way, recovery of motorcycle is not helpful to the prosecution case. I fortify our view from the dictum laid down in the case titled as “Naveed Asghar vs. The State and another” (PLD 2021 SC 600).
10. With regard to the recovery of mobile Data (P.4/1-6), vide seizure memo. (Exh.CW5/A) which simply depicts the number of caller as well of recipient, location, duration of call and not more than this, even there is no evidence that what was the conversation made between the caller and recipient. The prosecution has failed to collect the proof of ownership from the concerned company in order to ascertain that on whose name the SIMS were registered. No voice record transcript has been brought on the record. It is well settled by now that CDR is not conclusive proof of involvement of accused in the commission of crime. Reliance is placed upon the case titled as “Azeem Khan and another vs. Mujahid Khan and others” (2016 SCMR 274), wherein, it has been held as under:
“The cell phone call data collected is of no help to the prosecution for the reasons that numerous calls have been made indicating continuous interaction between the two cell phones, contrary to the evidence given by Muhammad Wali (PW-3), who has stated at the trial that the unknown caller made calls on his cell phone four times. No competent witness was produced at the trial, who provided the call data, Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. No voice record transcript has been brought on record. Similarly from which area the caller made the calls, is also not shown in it. Above all, the most crucial and conclusive proof that the cell phone was owned by the accused and SIM allotted was in his name is also missing. In this view of the matter, this piece of evidence is absolutely inconclusive and of no benefit to the prosecution nor it connects the accused with the crime in any manner.”
Medical Evidence
11. Insofar as the medical evidence of the prosecution is concerned, it is by now well settled that medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the prosecution version with regard to receipt of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not identify the assailant. Reference in this context may be made to the case of “Muhammad Mansha vs. The State” (2018 SCMR 772), “Ghulam Mustafa vs. The State” (2009 SCMR 916) and “Muhammad Hassan and another v. The State and another” (2024 SCMR 1427).
12. Now the only piece of evidence remains in field is the motive advanced by the prosecution behind the unfortunate incident, which, as per prosecution version is that of illicit relations of Ayesha Bibi (deceased) and on that pretext of honour the appellant had committed the murder of Ayesha Bibi (deceased) and his son Ali of age four months but it was an oral assertion of the complainant and no material evidence in the shape of ocular or documentary evidence was produced to substantiate the motive alleged by the prosecution, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the motive part of occurrence and I too do not find any convincing reason to differ with the findings of learned trial Court in this regard. Although the prosecution is not under an obligation to establish a motive in every murder case, but it is also a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that if the prosecution sets up a motive and fails to prove it, then it is the prosecution who has to suffer and not the accused. I very respectfully rely on the case of “Maqsood Alam and another v. The State and others” (2024 SCMR 156).
13. I have considered all the pros and cons of this case and have come to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt. It is, by now well established principle of law that it is the prosecution, which has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs, but in this case the prosecution remained failed to discharge its responsibility. It is also well established principle of law that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about the prosecution story. Reliance is placed upon the following case laws titled as “Muhammad Riaz vs. Khurram Shahzad and another” (2024 SCMR 51) “Muhammad Nawaz and another v. The State and others” (2024 SCMR 1731) and “Rehmat Ullah and 2 others v. The State and others” (2024 SCMR 1782).
14. For what has been discussed above, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, the titled appeal is accepted, I set aside convictions and sentences of Zafar Iqbal, appellant recorded by the learned trial Court and acquit him of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. He is in jail; he be enfranchised trice if not required in any other case.
15. In the light of above findings, criminal revision filed by Azam Farooq, complainant (PW.1) for enhancement of sentence of appellant is dismissed.
16. As a natural corollary, Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 77639 of 2019 filed by the complainant against acquittal of co-accused is hereby dismissed and leave is refused.
(A.A.K.) Appeal accepted
0 Comments