1989 PLP 652 (MLD)

FAZAL KARIM, J.--‑ The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that respondents Abdul Ghafoor and Maqbool Hussain were tried alongwith three others by Special Court for Speedy Trials No. VIII, Sargodha under section 302/148/149/404, P.P.C. for the murder of Murtaza Hassan Shah. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 11‑10‑1988 convicted Muhammad Rafique alias Kukoo, Muhammad Ayyub and Muhammad Aslam under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to death. Respondents Abdul Ghafoor and Maqbool Hussain were, however, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The State has filed the present appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents. The complainant has also filed a revision impugning the judgment so far it relates to the respondents who have been acquitted. Both the matters will be disposed of by this judgment.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has neither considered nor discussed the statement of Muhammad Nawaz P.W.4 which was not even challenged in cross‑examination, therefore, the same should have been relied upon without any reservation. Contends that there is ample evidence which proves the involvement of the respondents in the commission, of the offence.

3. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the file. The only evidence appearing against the respondents is of Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.4, and Abdur Rehman, P.W.5. Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.4, though was not cross‑examined, yet he did not state anything which could prove the involvement of the respondents in the commission of the murder. He simply stated that the respondents within his hearing asked the other co‑accused, who have been convicted, that they should go towards the Chhapri of Hassan Shah while the respondents would sit near the tube‑well of Wali Muhammad. He further stated that both the respondents told their co‑accused that they should attack the fields of Hassan Shah. It is pertinent to note that this witness has not stated anything with regard to the murder of Murtaza Hassan Shah. We, therefore, hold that even if the statement of this witness is relied upon it does not advance the case of the appellant in any manner. Abdul Rehman P.W.5 stated that he heard a fire‑shot from the side of Chhapri and saw a person falling on the ground, and also saw three persons on the western side of the person who had fallen. Thereafter, he saw the convicts who passed by him while armed with guns. The respondents also joined the said convicts while coming from the side of the tube‑well. A perusal of the statement of this witness indicates that at the time when he heard the fire‑shot, he did not even see the respondents nor any overt act has been attributed by this witness to either of the respondents. Even if complete reliance is placed on the statement of this witness, it would not advance the ease of the appellant so far as the acquittal of the respondents is concerned. There is no other evidence which even remotely connects the respondents with the commission of the offence. We have gone through the judgment and find that cogent reasons have been given by the trial Court for the acquittal of Abdul Ghafoor and Maqbool Hussain. We see no reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court. Resultantly, the appeal fails which is accordingly, dismissed. For the same reasons the revision also fail's which is dismissed. M.Y.H./S‑364/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.