2004 PLP 777 (SCMR)

Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th May, 2003. KHALIL‑UR‑RAHMAN RAMDAY, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against a judgment dated 22‑1‑2002 whereby a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court had dismissed Criminal Appeal No.2069 of 2001 which impugned the acquittal recorded in favour of the two private respondents by a learned Additional Sessions Judge at Jaranwala.

2. The reasons which had weighed with the Honourable High Court in affirming the said acquittal are reproduced below:‑‑ "

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. As far as Ali Muhammad respondent is concerned, he is father of Amanullah‑respondent. He was not present at the spot. There is not an iota of evidence of abetment against him on the record and no material was brought to prove the said charge, song case is made out for interference of his acquittal. Appeal to his extent is dismissed.

5. Now we take up case of Amanullah respondent. Prosecution story is that a night prior to the occurrence, Ali Muhammad father of Amanullah‑respondent came to the house of Muhammad Ismail deceased and told him that he has been summoned by Amanullah for the reason that he would deposit a sum of Rs.50,000 in the Bank in his presence, on which on the next day at 9‑00 a.m. Muhammad Ismail started going towards the place pointed out by Amanullah‑respondent. Muhammad Shafi‑complainant (P.W.9), brother of the deceased and Muhammad Din (P.W.12), nephew of the deceased also followed him. When they reached near a thorough fair, they saw Amanullah‑respondent while inflicting Chhurri blows on the person of Muhammad Ismail deceased, who died at the spot. In this case, both the eye‑witnesses had no purpose to follow Muhammad Ismail deceased because they were never summoned by Amanullah‑respondent. It is interesting to note here that Abdul Hameed (P.W.3) who is very closely related to the deceased and the complainant, has admitted during cross examination and he is witness of blood‑stained earth and cheque book. According to him, when he reached the spot, an announcement was being made on the loudspeaker in the mosque that dead body of some unknown person is lying at the spot. If this is/was the position, then how the eye‑witnesses stated that it was Amanullah‑respondent, who committed murder of Muhammad Ismail. Even at page 12 of the impugned judgment, it is mentioned that Shaukat Ali (D.W.1) and Muhammad (D.W.2) also deposed that announcement regarding identification of an unknown dead body was being made on the loudspeaker in the mosque: In fact it was an unseen occurrence having taken place in the early hours of the day and there were ten injuries on the person of the deceased. Conduct of the eye‑witnesses is most unnatural because if they were present at the spot, then it could not be possible for the accused to cause ten injuries on the person of the deceased without any hindrance and interruption."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the concurrent finding of innocence recorded in favour of the two respondents was either perverse or arbitrary. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused. N.H.Q./M‑29/S Petition dismissed.