PLJ 2026 Cr.C. (Note) 32
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Sadaqat Ali Khan and Shehram Sarwar Ch., JJ.
versus
STATE--Respondents
Crl. A. Nos. 822, 730 & M.R. No. 107 of 2019, heard on 23.9.2024.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
ایس ایس ۔ 302 (b) اور 337-A (i)
- محرک جھگڑا تھا - - شک کا فائدہ - واقعہ کا محرک متوفی اور اپیل کنندہ کے درمیان موجودہ واقعہ سے کچھ عرصہ قبل جھگڑا تھا ، جس کی تفصیل ظاہر نہیں کی گئی ہے جو قابل اعتبار نہیں ہے ۔ - پی ایف ایس کی منفی رپورٹ کی موجودگی میں اپیل کنندہ کی طرف اشارہ کرنے پر ریپیٹر 12-بور کی بازیابی جرم کے ہتھیار کے ساتھ جرم کا مماثلت نہ صرف غیر اہم ہے بلکہ منفی نتیجہ اخذ کرتا ہے - ہولڈ: یہ قانون کا طے شدہ اصول ہے کہ شک کا فائدہ دینے کے لیے ، یہ ضروری نہیں ہے کہ شک پیدا کرنے والے بہت سے حالات ہوں-اگر کوئی ایسا حالات ہے جو ملزم کے جرم کے بارے میں سمجھدار ذہن میں معقول شک پیدا کرتا ہے ، تو وہ اس کے فائدے کا حقدار ہوگا ، فضل یا رعایت کے طور پر نہیں ، بلکہ حق کے طور پر ۔
----Ss. 302(b) & 337-A(i)--Qatl-e-amd--Motive was quarrel--Conviction and sentence--Challenge to--Benefit of doubt--Motive of occurrence was quarrel between deceased and appellant sometime prior to present occurrence, detail of which has not been disclosed which is not believable--Recovery of repeater 12-bore on pointing out of appellant in presence of negative report of PFSA qua matching of crime empties with weapon of offence is not only inconsequential rather draws adverse inference--Held: It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt--If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in prudent mind about guilt of accused, then he would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession, but as of right. [Para 9, 10 & 13] A, B & C
2011 SCMR 323.
M/s. Ch. Abdul Hafeez, James Joseph, Muhammad Imran Rasheed Sulehri, Muhammad Mehtab Akbar, Muhammad Azam Ali, Mehar Muhammad Sajjad, Advocates with Muhammad Ibrahim appellant on bail for Appellants.
M/s. Malik Muhammad Akram Bhatti and Tahir Mahmood, Advocates for Complinant.
Ch. Muhammad Akbar, Addl.P.G. for State.
Date of hearing: 23.9.2024.
Judgment
Sadaqat Ali Khan, J.--Appellants (Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Ibrahim) alongwith co-accused Muhammad Akhtar (since acquitted) have been tried by the trial Court in case FIR No. 443 dated 06.10.2015 offences under Sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337-L2 and 34, PPC registered at Police Station Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh and were convicted and sentenced vide judgement dated 27.07.2019 as under:
1. Muhammad Safdar (appellant)
U/S. 302(b), PPC Sentenced to death as Tazir for committing Qati-i-Amd of Ahmad Ali deceased with compensation of
Rs. 500,000/- payable to legal heirs of the deceased u/S. 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default whereof to further undergo six months S.I.
U/S 337-A(i), PPC Sentenced to two years S.I. with payment of Daman of Rs. 20,000/-payable to Ahmad Yar injured and in default whereof to further undergo two months S.1.
Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Muhammad Ibrahim (appellant)
U/S 337-A(ii), PPC Sentenced to three years R.I. with payment of Arsh to Ahmad Yar injured which shall be 5% of Divat and in default whereof to further undergo three months S.I.
U/S 337-A(i), PPC Sentenced to two years S.1. with payment of Daman of Rs. 20,000/-payable to Ghulam Ali injured and in default whereof to further undergo two months S.I.
U/S 337-Fi), PPC Sentenced to one year S.I. with payment of Daman of Rs. 10,000/-payable to Mansab Mai injured and in default whereof to further undergo one month S.I.
All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently with benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Appellants have filed Criminal Appeals against their convictions individually and separately and the trial Court has sent Murder Reference for confirmation of death Sentence of Muhammad Safdar (appellant) or otherwise, which are being decided through this single judgment.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Ahmad Ali was done to death whereas Ahmad Yar PW.7, Mansab Mai PW.8 and Ghulam Ali PW.9 sustained injuries during the occurrence took place in front of the house of Muhammad Ibrahim appellant on 06.10.2016 at 5:30 p.m., whereafter FIR was lodged on the same evening i.e. 06.10.2016 at 6:35 p.m. on the statement of Sher Muhammad complainant, PW.6 who while claiming himself to be the eye-witness of the occurrence stated before the trial Court as under:
“I am a labourer. On 06.10.2015 at about 05:30 PM 1 alongwith Ahmad Ali. Ghulam Ali and Mansab Mai were present at our home. In the meanwhile we heard the noise coming from the house of Ahmad Yar my cousin. Upon which we rushed towards his house. When we reached in the front of house of Ahmad Yar, he came out from the house. We saw that Safdar armed with. repeater, Muhammad Ibrahim armed with Sota and Akhtar armed with hatchet present in the Court were abusing Ahmad Yar. Ibrahim accused present in the Court raised Lalkara not to leave alive Ahmad Yar. PWs Bahadur and Abdul Hakeem also reached there. Akhtar accused gave the hatchet blow which landed on the left side of neck of Ahmad Yar. Ibrahim accused gave the Sota blow which landed on the left side of head of Ahmad Yar. Mst. Mansab Mai came forward to rescue Ahmad Yar, in the meanwhile Ibrahim accused gave Sota blow which hit on the left elbow of Mst. Mansab Mai. Ibrahim accused made a second blow of Sota which hit on the head of Ghulam Ali when he came forward to rescue Ahmad Yar. Ahmad Ali (deceased) stepped forward to rescue his mother Mst. Mansab Mai upon which Safdar accused present in the Court made fires with his repeater which hit on the face, neck and shoulder of Ahmad Ali deceased who while smeared in blood fell down on the ground. On the hue and cry the other people of the locality also came there and the accused persons fled away towards West with their respective weapons. We were shifting the injured persons to THQ hospital Jatoi. Ahmad Ali the then injured (now deceased) succumbed to the injuries on the way to Hospital. We reached in the hospital and the police also came there after receiving information about the occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence is that some time prior to the instant occurrence I and Ahmad Yar had forbade Safdar accused from visiting our house upon which some hot words were also exchanged between us and due to this grudge the accused persons had committed the murder of Ahmad Ali.”
5. Ahmad Yar PW.7, Mansab Mai PW.8 and Ghulam Ali PW.9 while appearing before the trial Court have reiterated the same story.
6. In this case, blood-stained earth has not been collected to establish exact place of occurrence.
7. On 06.10.2015, medical officer (Dr. Muhammad Amjad Shahzada) during medical examination of Ahmad Yar PW.7 and Ghulam Ali PW.9 (injured witnesses) observed simple injuries on their persons. On 14.10.2015, medical officer (Dr. Shumaila Anjums) during medical examination of Mansab Mai PW.8 observed healed wounds on her person. All these three injured PWs. were medically examined under the escort of the police. It is not the case of prosecution that injured PWs. remained unconscious. Admittedly, they got recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. on 14.10.2015 as stated by Muhammad Afzal S.I. PW.13 with unexplained delay of eight days from date of occurrence i.e. 06.10.2015. They remained mum for so many days and did not disclose the occurrence to anyone, so, possibility of fabrication regarding their injuries to show them injured witnesses cannot be ruled out. Their delayed statements not only shatter their credibility rather create doubt in the prosecution story which is otherwise neither plausible nor believable.
8. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, presence of eye-witnesses at the relevant time is not free from doubt.
9. Motive of the occurrence was quarrel between the deceased and the appellant sometime prior to the present occurrence, detail of which has not been disclosed which is not believable.
10. Recovery of repeater 12-bore on pointing out of Muhammad Safdar appellant in presence of negative report of PFSA qua matching of crime empties with weapon of offence is not only inconsequential rather draws adverse inference.
11. Muhammad Akhtar co-accused has also been attributed injuries on the person of Ahmad YarPW.7 but he has been acquitted by the trial Court through the impugned judgment, State/complainant has not filed any appeal against his acquittal.
12. The argument of learned counsel for the complainant that the evidence of injured P.WS. (Ahmad Yar PW.7, Mansab Mai PW.8 and Ghulam Ali) PW.9 cannot be discarded as the injuries on their persons have established their presence at the time of occurrence at the place of occurrence, has no substance because merely the injuries on their persons would not stamp them truthful witnesses. Reliance is placed on case “Amin Ali and another vs. The State” (2011 SCMR 323).
13. In view of the above discussion, we entertain serious doubt in our minds regarding participation of Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Ibrahim appellants in the present case. It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then he would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession, but as of right.
14. For the foregoing reasons, criminal appeals (filed by Muhammad Safdar and Muhammad Ibrahim appellants separately) are accepted their conviction and sentences awarded by the trial Court through the impugned judgment are hereby set-aside, they are acquitted of the charge. Muhammad Ibrahim appellant is present on bail. His surety stands discharged, whereas Muhammad Safdar appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Murder Reference is answered in NEGATIVE and death sentence of Muhammad Safdar (appellant) is NOT CONFIRMED.
(A.A.K.) Appeal accepted
0 Comments