2016 PLP 1456 (SCMR)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

The facts of this case as well as the evidence produced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the judgments passed by the courts below and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going the record we have observed that admittedly respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had not caused any injury to Mst. Nusrat Bibi deceased and to the other deceased namely Bashir Ahmed and the allegation against them was in respect of causing firearm injuries to Muhammad Arif (PW7) only. The said allegation leveled against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was not supported by the medical evidence because according to the eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had fired at and injured Muhammad Arif (PW7) from a distance of thirty-five feet but the medical evidence had shown availability of burning on the relevant injuries which was not possible from a distance of thirty-five feet. Apart from that the medical evidence had shown that Muhammad Arif (PW7) had received injuries through pellets whereas according to the prosecution respondents No. 1 and 2 were armed with rifles. There was a glaring contradiction between the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution and that was that although PW5 and PW7 had maintained that respondent No. 2 had caused a firearm injury on the left thigh of PW7 and respondent No. 1 had caused a firearm injury on the right thigh of PW7 yet PW6 had maintained before the trial court in black and white that both the firearm injuries received by PW7 had been caused by respondent No. 2 namely Muhammad Asghar only. Nothing had been recovered from the possession of respondent No. 2 during the investigation of this case and he had been declared innocent by the investigating agency whereas the alleged recovery of a firearm from the custody of respondent No. 1 was legally inconsequential because no crime-empty had been secured from the place of occurrence so as to connect the recovered weapon with the alleged murder or murderous assault, etc. The FIR contained two motives, i.e. an altercation taking place between the complainant party and some of the accused persons in the first half of the day of occurrence and the motive based upon an on-going litigation between the parties. We have noticed that as regards the first motive both respondents No. 1 and 2 had not participated in the incident forming that motive and the second motive was too vague and generalized to be pinning down respondents Nos. 1 and 2 directly. All these considerations weighed with the High Court in recording acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt and upon our own independent evaluation of the evidence available on the record we too have reached the same conclusion and, thus, no occasion has been found by us for interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The bail bonds and sureties of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 shall stand discharged. MWA/F-6/SC Appeal dismissed.