2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)

AALIA NEELUM, J.

Dost Muhammad son of Muhammad Hayat, caste Tulla, resident of Hayatpur Dakhli Dhigranwali, Tehsil Bhalwal (now Tehsil Kot Moman), District Sargodha, appellant (in Crl. Appeal No.1372 of 2005), Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf, Umra son of Sultan, both Arain by caste, residents of Jholpur, Tehsil Kot Moman, District Sargodha, appellants (in Crl. Appeal No.482 of 2005), Nazir son of Qadir, caste Warriach, resident of Hayatpur/Jhoolpur, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha, appellant (in Crl. Appeal No.529 of 2005) along with Amanullah son of Mian Iftikhar (since acquitted), Muhammad Ashraf son of Jan Muhammad (since acquitted), Mumtaz son of Nazir (since acquitted), Anwar son of Jan Muhammad (since acquitted), Umar Hayat alias Umra son of Anwar (since acquitted), Muhammad Aslam son of Ghulam Muhammad (since acquitted), Iftikhar son of Sarwar (since acquitted), Ghulam Muhammad son of Bakhsha (since acquitted) and Muhammad Aslam son of Ahmad Khan (since acquitted) were involved in case FIR No.168 of 2000, dated 24.04.2000, offence under Sections 302, 324, 379, 427, 148, 149 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha and were tried by Ch. Abdul Hafeez, Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha Camp at Bhalwal.

2. The learned trial court seized with the matter in terms of judgment dated 07.03.2005 and convicted the appellants as under:-- i) under Section 302 (b)/149 P.P.C. for causing death of Nazir deceased and sentenced each of them to life imprisonment with the direction to pay Rs.25,000/- each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A Cr.P.C. and in case of default thereof, the appellants further undergo six months S.I. ii) under Section 148 P.P.C. each of them was sentenced to two years R.I. iii) under Sections 324/149 P.P.C. each of them was sentenced to ten years R.I. iv) under Sections 337-A(i)/149 P.P.C. for causing Shajja Khqfifah injuries to Shujaat Ali, injured/PW in furtherance of their common intention, the appellants were sentenced to two years R.I. each along with Daman of Rs.1000/- each. v) under Section 337-F(i)/149 P.P.C. for causing Jurah Damiah injuries to Moazam Ali, injured/PW and were sentenced each of them to one year R.I with Daman of Rs.1000/- each. vi) under Section 337-F(ii)/149 P.P.C. for causing Jurah Badiah injuries to Shujjat Ali PW/injured and each of them were sentenced to one year R.I with Daman of Rs.1000/-each. vii) under Section 337-F(i)/149 P.P.C. for causing Jurah Ghayr Jaifah Damiah injuries to Moazzam Ali, PW/injured and the appellants were sentenced to one year R.I. each along with Daman of Rs.1000/-each. The benefit of Section 382-B of Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellants. Muhammad Afzal son of Shera, one of the accused was on bail during trial but at the time of pronouncement of judgment, he slipped away from the court and perpetual warrants were ordered to be issued to the concerned police station whereas Muhammad Aslam son of Mutali accused was declared proclaimed offender and his perpetual warrants were also issued.

3. It is also pointed out here that one of the appellants, namely, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf, caste Arain, resident of Jholpur, Tehsil Kot Moman, District Sargodha, (in Crl. Appeal No.532 of 2005) was also involved in another case FIR No.184 of 2001, dated 26.04.2001, offence under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965, registered at the same Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha and was tried by Ch. Abdul Hafeez, Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha Camp at Bhalwal. The said learned trial court seized with the matter in terms of judgment dated 07.03.2005 and convicted said Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf, appellant as under:- Under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965 and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of default thereof, the appellant further to undergo three months S.I. The benefit of Section 382-B of Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgments of the learned trial courts, Dost Muhammad, Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf, Umra son of Sultan, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf, and Nazir son of Qadir, appellants have assailed their sentence and conviction through filing Criminal Appeals bearing No.1372 of 2005, No.482 of 2005, No.532 of 2005 and No.529 of 2005 respectively.

5. Similarly, Gul Muhammad, the complainant filed Criminal Appeal No.979 of 2005 under section 417(2) Cr.P.C. against acquittal of respondents, namely, Ghulam Muhammad son of Bakhsha, Mian Iftikhar son of Sarwar, Muhammad Ashraf son of Jan Muhammad, Muhammad Aslam son of Ahmad Khan, Mumtaz son of Nazir, Aman Ullah son of Mian Iftikhar, Anwar son of Jan Muhammad, Umar Hayat alias Umara and Muhammad Aslam son of Ghulam Muhammad, respondents Nos.1 to

9. It is pertinent to mention here that at preliminary stage this Court dismissed the appeal against acquittal bearing No.979/2005 to the extent of respondents Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to

9. However, to the extent of Aman Ullah, respondent No.6, a notice was issued to him (Aman Ullah son of Mian Iftikhar, respondent No.6) to Show Cause as to why the acquittal be not converted into conviction as he was attributed fatal injuries on the person of the deceased and has been acquitted by the learned trial court.

6. As all these Criminal Appeals have been filed in consequence of same a occurrence, therefore, the same are being disposed of through single judgment.

7. Precisely the facts leading to the conclusion of all the matters in case FIR No.168 of 2000, dated 24.04.2000, offence under Sections 302, 324, 379, 427, 148, 149 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha are that in the F.I.R (Exh.PU) lodged on the statement of Gul Muhammad (PW.12)/complainant are that they had family terms with Moazzam Ali who got land measuring 2-Acres on lease from Iftikhar Ahmad for three years. Iftikhar Ahmad had sold out land in question to Anwar and Ghulam Muhammad about two months ago. On coming to know about sale of land by Iftikhar Ahmad, Moazam Ali obtained status quo order from the civil court by filing suit in which next date of hearing was 25.4.2000. Moazzam Ali had gone to Sargodha to appear in court where murder case pending against him. The complainant along with his brother Nazir Ahmad, Manzoor Ahmad (cousin) and one Shujaat Ali brother of Moazam Ali had gone to Sargodha and on return Sultan son of Mirza, their servant told that Aman Ullah along with twelve (12) other persons were taking wheat crops after cutting it. On this information, Moazam Ali along with others went towards dera of Iftikhar Ahmad at 4.05 p.m. and when they were at some distance from the said dera, accused persons, namely, Aman Ullah, Nazir Ahmad, Dost Muhammad, Afzal, Anwar, Umra son of Muhammad Anwar, Aslam, Umra son of Sultan, Muhammad Aslam son of Mutali, Aslam son of Ghulam Muhammad along with three unknown accused persons while armed with deadly weapons were present there. On seeing the accused, Aman Ullah raised lalkara that who came near them, kill them, upon which complainant's brother Nazir Ahmad (deceased) tried to make him understand. Suddenly, accused Aman Ullah fired with his .12-bore gun which landed on the left side of the chest of Nazir Ahmad who fell down. The other accused Nazir Ahmad son of Qadir and Umra son of Anwar also made single fire each which hit on the body of Shujaat on his forehead and on the left shoulder. Then Dost Muhammad fired with his 12-bore gun which hit on the right thigh of Moazam Ali. Thereafter the accused persons made indiscriminately firing which hit at the back side of left hand of Shujaat Ali. The accused persons while making indiscriminatory firing went to the Havaily of cattle of Moazam Ali. The fire shot made by Muhammad Aslam son of Ashraf injured she donkey. They kept on firing for long time. After their departure, they attended Nazir Ahmad who had succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Motive behind the occurrence is that Iftikhar Ahmad sold the land in question to the other party after giving the same on lease when Moazam Ali obtained stay order, he (Iftikhar Ahmad) felt annoyance qua obtaining of injunction by Moazam Ali. Aman Ullah son of Iftikhar Ahmad has committed murder of Nazir Ahmad along with other accused, whereas they injured Shujjat and Moazzam Ali. The accused persons had committed the occurrence on the abetment of Iftikhar Ahmad son of Muhammad Sarwar. Naseem Mahmood and Mushtaq heard the conspiracy allegedly made by Iftikhar Ahmad at his (Iftikhar, Ahmad) dera on 23.4.2000 at about "shamwaila".

8. Similarly, the brief facts leading to the conclusion of case FIR No.184 of 2001 dated 26.04.2001, registered under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance (No.XX of 1965) against one of the appellants, namely, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf vide (Crl. Appeal No.532/2005) at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha is that according to the prosecution, Muhammad Aslam (accused) being in custody with PW-2, namely, Bashir Ahmad, S.I. on 26.4.2001 in the connected murder case FIR No.168 of 2000, dated 24.04.2000, offence under Sections 302, 324, 379, 427, 148, 149 P.P.C. registered at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha made disclosure and got recovered .12-bore gun from a bamboo garden of one Aziz Ahmad near Kanda Motorway, Bhabra Road. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PA which was attested by PW1-Muhammad Ilyas C/1283 and Rabnawaz given up PW. No licence was produced by the accused for possession of the gun, hence PW-2 Bashir Ahmad, SI drafted complaint Ex.PB and sent the same to police station for formal registration of FIR (Exh.PB/1). Said Bashir Ahmad, S.I. prepared site plan of place of recovery Ex.PC and recorded the statements of the PWs and got the accused challaned in this case. Having found the appellant (Muhammad Aslam) guilty, the Investigating Officer prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. and sent the same to the court for trial. The said learned trial court seized with the matter in terms of judgment dated 07.03.2005 and convicted said Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf, appellant Under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965 and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. with fine of Rs.1000/- and in case of default thereof, the appellant to further undergo three months S.I. The benefit of Section 382-B of Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the said appellant.

9. In the main case FIR No.168 of 2000, dated 24.04.2000, offence under Sections 302, 324, 379, 427, 148, 149 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha, thereafter the complainant-Gul Muhammad (PW-12) proceeded to the Police Station to report the matter after leaving the prosecution witnesses at the spot who guarded the dead body of the deceased Nazir Ahmad and made statement before Muhammad Bashir, SI (since died) who recorded statement of the complainant, which was signed by the complainant as a token of its correctness. Thereafter, Bashir Ahmad, S.I. (since died) was entrusted investigation of this case, who visited the place of occurrence and prepared injury statement (Exh.PL), inquest report (Exh.PM) and handed over the dead body of the deceased to Umar Hayat, constable-637 (PW-3) for postmortem examination. The Investigating Officer (since died) prepared injury statement (Exh.PF) of injured-Moazaian Ali, injury statement of injured-Shujaat Ali (Exh.PH) and deputed Muhammad Ashraf, constable for medical examination of injured, Moazam Ali and Shujaat Ali. Thereafter the Investigation Officer took into possession bloodstained earth vide recovery memo (Exh.PV), 51-empties of .12-bore gun and one empty of 303 Bore were also taken into possession through recovery memo (Exh.PW). On the same day, Umer Hayat, Constable 637 (PW.3) produced the last worn clothes of the deceased before the Investigating Officer (since died) i.e. shirt (P-1) and chaddar (P-2) qua which recovery memo (Exh.PB) was prepared by the Investigating Officer. The injured-Moazam Ali produced his shalwar before the Investigating Officer (P-12) and shirt (P-13) which were taken into possession through recovery memo (Exh.PX). Thereafter the injured-Shujaat Ali produced his shirt (P-14) and same was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide recovery memo (Exh.PY). The injured she-donkey was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide recovery memo- (Exh.PZ), whose injury statement was prepared as (Exh.PA/1). The Investigating Officer prepared un-scaled site plan of place of occurrence (Exh.PAA). Thereafter he (Investigating Officer) arrested the accused, namely, Amanullah, Nazir, Dost Muhammad, Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Aslam son of Mutali, Umra son of Sultan. During physical remand, accused-Aslam son of Mutali got recovered gun .12-bore (P-5) along with licence from his house qua which recovery memo was prepared as (Exh.PP) whereas the other accused persons, namely, Dost Muhammad, Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Afzal and Umar Hayat son of Sultan also got recovered guns .12-bore Pistols (P-6), (P-7), (P-8) and (P-9) respectively which were taken into possession by him (Investigating Officer) vide recovery memos (Exh.PQ/1), (Exh.PR/1), (Exh.PS/1), (Exh.PT/1) respectively. Thereafter Muhammad Bashir, S.I. had died prior to his appearance before the court as witness and investigation conducted by him was verified by Ghulam Hussain, ASI (PW-7) who was working with Muhammad Bashir, S.I. (since died). Thereafter investigation was entrusted to Bashir Ahmad, S.I. (PW.17) on 18.04.2001, who (PW-17) arrested the accused Muhammad Aslam son of Ahmad, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf and Muhammad Arshad on the same day. On 26.04.2001, accused-Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf led to the recovery of gun (P-15) which was taken into possession vide recovery memo as prepared by him (PW-17) as (Exh.PBB/1). On the same day, accused-Muhammad Ashraf got recovered gun (P-4) qua which recovery memo was prepared as (Exh.PN) and (Exh.PN/1) is site plan of place of recovery. Thereafter the accused-Muhammad Aslam son of Ahmad got recovered gun (P3) which was taken into possession by him (PW-17) vide recovery memo (Exh.PC) and prepared site plan of place of recovery (Exh.PC/1).

10. Having found the appellants guilty, the Investigating Officer prepared report under section 173 Cr.P.C. and sent the same to the Court of Sessions through Magistrate as provided under Section 190 (2) of Cr.P.C.

11. After submission of challan, the accused were formally charge sheeted by the learned trial court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the version, produced eighteen (18) witnesses. Ocular account of occurrence in this case has come out from the statements of the complainant-Gul Muhammad (PW-12), Shujaat Ali (PW-10) and Mauzam Ali (PW-11). Bashir Ahmad, S.I. (PW-17) was the Investigating Officer of this case.

12. Dr. Nayyar Abbas (PW-6) had conducted the postmortem examination upon the dead body of Nazir Ahmad-deceased on 25.4.2000 and found following injuries on his person:-- Injuries. A lacerated wound of entry with inverted edges 1/2 x 1/2 cm on the left side of chest 51/2 cm medial to left nipple. Opinion. In his (doctor) opinion, death had occurred due to excessive haemorrhage and shock under injury No.1. Injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury No.1 was ante-mortem and was caused by firearm. Probable time that elapsed between injury and death was soon after and between death and post-mortem was within 24 hours.

13. Dr. Zulfiqar Ali while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 deposed that he medically examined the animal donkey female on 26.04.2000, white colour on the request of Muhammad Ashraf No.1300-C of Police Station Kot Momen. During the medical examination, the doctor observed the following injuries:

1. The sign of punctured wound on the left ear just two inch above the base.

2. Coagulated blood was present at the wound site.

3. Acrossed wound about one and half mm was recorded on the ear. OPINION. In my opinion the above said wound is made by a shot gun particles.

14. Similarly, Dr. Nayyar Abbas (PW-1) also medically examined Moazzam Ali son of Ghazanfar Ali on 24.04.2000. On the same day, at 11:30 p.m, said doctor medically examined Moazzam Ali aged about 40 years, who was brought before him by Muhammad Ashraf 1300/C and observed following injuries:-

1. An area of slight redness fire arm wound .75 cm x .75 cm pit shaped on right thigh with an abrasion of 1 x 1 cm just close to the pitted area. Injury No.1 was declared as Jurah Ghayyar Jaifah Damiah and probable duration of injury and medical examination was within 6 to 8 hours. Ex.PE is the correct carbon copy of the MLR, which bears his signatures.

15. Thereafter, on the same day, at 11.45 p.m. Dr. Nayyar Abbas (PW-1) conducted the medical examination of Shujaat Ali son of Ghazanfar Ali, who was also produced before him by Muhammad Ashraf Constable No.1300 and observed following injuries:--

1. A lacerated wound fire arm wound of entry with inverted edges 1/2 x 1/2 cm on the left side of forehead.

2. A firearm entry wound with inverted edges .5 x .5 cm on the right side of forehead.

3. A fire arm entry wound with inverted edges .5 x .5 cm on the left side of head just above left ear.

4. A contusion mark 1/2 x %2 cm on the right side of head.

5. A fire arm wound of entry with inverted edges .5 x .5 cm on the lower part of left fore arm.

6. A fire arm wound of entry with inverted edges .5 x .5 cm on the lower part of left fore arm.

7. A fire arm entry wound with inverted edges .5 x .5 cm on the left shoulder lateral part.

8. Two abrasions in an area of 3 cm on the top of left shoulder close to injury No.7.

9. An abrasion ;5 x .5 cm on the left side of neck.

10. A fire arm entry wound with inverted edges .5 x .5 cm on the back of right hand.

11. An abrasion 1 x 1 cm on the back and left side of chest. Probable duration of injuries was within 6 to 8 hours. Ex.PG is the correct carbon copy of the MLR, which bears his signatures. The injuries Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 were declared as Shajja Khafifah whereas injuries Nos.5, 6, 7 and 10 were declared as Jurah Badiha while injuries Nos.8, 9 and 11 were declared as Jurah Damiah. 12 X.rays were handed over to the police.

16. The learned Deputy District Attorney vide his separate statement recorded on 6.11.2003 gave up PW Mushtaq Ahmad Ranjha. The learned Special Public Prosecutor closed the prosecution evidence on 02.11.2004 after tendering the report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PDD and report of Serologist Exh.PEE.

17. The appellants were also examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., in murder case FIR No.168 of 2000 dated 24.04.2000, offence under Sections 302, 324, 379, 427, 148, 149 P.P.C, registered at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha, wherein neither they opted to appear as their own witnesses in disproof of the allegations levelled against them nor to produce defence evidence.

18. In response to the question why this case against him and why the PWs deposed against him, Dost Muhammad, appellant made the following deposition:- "Due to enmity." Similarly, Umra son of Sultan appellant replied this particular question in the following terms:- "I have been involved in this case malafidely just for being Arain. I am a poor man. Fake recovery has been planted upon me. I was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. I am innocent." Likewise, Nazir appellant replied this particular question in the following terms:-- "I have no concern with the land in dispute, I have been involved due to party faction. Injured PWs secured fake MLRs. I was not present at the spot on the day of occurrence. Similarly, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf appellant replied this particular question in the following terms:-- "As I belonged to Arain family and disputed property has been purchased by the Arain family, hence I have been involved in this case malafidely. Fake recovery of gun has been planted on me. She donkey has not been fired by me.

19. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the learned trial court, while evaluating the evidence available on the record, found the version of the prosecution correct beyond any shadow of doubt, resulting into conviction of the appellants in the above stated terms.

20. According to prosecution the occurrence in the present case allegedly had taken place on 24.4.2000 at 4/5 p.m. and the FIR (Ex.PU) was recorded on the statement of Gul Muhammad (PW-12), brother of Nazir Ahmad deceased at Police Station at 7.00 p.m. while the Police Station was at a distance of 16 kilometers, with a delay of 2/3 hours without plausible explanation. On the other hand, postmortem was conducted by Dr. Nayar Abbas (PW-6) on the next day i.e. 25.04.2000 at 9.00 a.m. According to Dr. Nayar Abbas (PW-6) the time between death and postmortem was within 24 hours which creates doubts about the time of occurrence. We have also noted that inquest report (Ex.PM) does not bear number of FIR. This suggests that FIR had been lodged after postmortem examination conducted on the dead body of Nazir Ahmad. Dr. Nayar Abbas (PW-6) during cross-examination admitted as correct that he did not give the date underneath his, signatures on inquest report. Thus, we find that the incident in question did not take place as indicated by the prosecution as a probable one. The prosecution has no sufficient proof with it that FIR was lodged at the given time. We have also noted that the Investigating Officer secured blood stained earth and crime empties vide recovery memo Ex.PV and Ex.PW on 25.4.2000 respectively. During the cross-examination, Ghulam Hussain, ASI has categorically stated that column No.23 of the inquest report is blank whereas on perusal of inquest report under the heading "Description of each article found on or near the dead body, column Nos.22 and 23 are blank itself creates doubt about the time of lodging of the FIR and presence of the complainant at the spot. It should be borne in mind, the time of lodging of FIR and occurrence is not the same as stated by the complainant (PW-12). We have also noticed that in the inquest report, in item No.11, it was mentioned "Blood frozen". This shows that death had occurred much earlier to the time mentioned by the prosecution. We have further noticed that Dr. Nayar Abbas (PW-6), who conducted the postmortem examination, had noted that the rigor mortis had fully developed. It indicated that the incident did not take place as stated by the prosecution, which also got support from the inquest report (Ex.PM) wherein it was recorded that blood was frozen. This also created doubt about the time of occurrence. So, the FIR was recorded with a delay and the same cannot be used against the appellants as well as respondent No.6 (Crl. Appeal No.979 of 2005) as a corroborative piece of evidence.

21. The credibility of Shujat Ali (PW-10), Moazam Ali (PW-11) and the complainant Gul Muhammad (PW-12) was seriously questioned by the appellants as well as by respondent No.6 due to material contradictions and improvements made by the witnesses in the cross-examination. Said Shujaat Ali while appearing in the witness box as PW-10 deposed during cross-examination which reads as under:-- "that on the day of occurrence I had started from Sargodha from Chak No.19 Phularwali. My brother Moazam Ali was also with me. I was an accused in a case under Section 302 P.P. C. in which I had to appear in the court on the day of occurrence. I had stated before the police that on our return journey, when we reached village Kotmomin, Sultan PW met me and informed me that Aman Ullah accused had been cutting wheat from the disputed field and was taking away. Confronted with the statement Exh.DA where it is not mentioned that the above information was imparted to the witness at village Kotmomin. I had stated in my statement Exh.DA that Dost Muhammad, Muhammad Afzal, Aslam son of Mutali and Aslam son of Ahmad Khan are party-men and gunman of Aman Ullah accused. Confronted not so recorded in Exh.DA. Volunteered that Dost Muhammad was plaintiff in the suit along with my brother Moazam Ali. I had stated in the Exh.DA that in the year 2000 myself and my brother Moazam obtained lease of land located in killa Nos.15 and

16. Confronted where it is not so recorded and instead it is recorded that lease was taken in 1998. I had stated in Exh.DA that he had also taken lease of the above land along with my brother. Confronted with Exh.DA where it is only recorded that Mozam Ali had taken such lease. I had stated in Exh.DA that all of us had come from Sargodha in a car to the place of occurrence. Confronted where presence of car is not recorded. I had stated in Exh.DA that he had reached at Kotmomin at 3:00 p.m. on the same day. Confronted not so re-corded. The information supplied to us by Sultan was that the accused were taking wheat. The statement made by me in examination-in-chief that the accused had been taking the crop is not correct. I had stated in Exh.DA that the accused were taking the wheat crop to the dera of Aman Ullah accused. Confronted not so recorded in Exh.DA. I had stated in Exh.DA that the accused had come from the side of dera of Aman Ullah accused. Confronted not so recorded and instead it is recorded that the accused was already present in the land. (underlined for emphasis). I had stated in Exh.DA that Nazir deceased had asked the accused not to take law into their own hands and they had already committed the excess while taking away the wheat crop. Confronted it is not recorded in Exh.DA. It is only recorded that Nazir deceased tried to make accused understand." Whereas Moazam Ali while appearing in the witness box as (PW-11) deposed during cross-examination which reads as under:-- "I had stated in Exh.DD that I along with my brother Shujat Ali PW had obtained the above lease. Confronted with Exh.DD where name of brother of the witness is not mentioned. I had not stated in my examination in chief that our lease period commenced from Rabi 2000. The witnesses explained that their lease had commenced from 1998. I had stated in Exh.DD that the lease is comprised of 2-acres located in Killa Nos.15 and 16 of square No.4. Confronted with Exh.DD where square and killa numbers are' not mentioned. Nazir Ahmad and Gul Muhammad complainant were neither accused or PWs in a murder case at Sargodha from where we had returned. I had stated in Exh.DD that Shujat Ali PW was also involved in a murder case at Sargodha. Confronted where the name of Shujat Ali PW in that context is not recorded. I had stated in Exh.DD that we had returned from Sargodha in a car. Confronted there is no mentioned of any car. I had stated in Exh.DD that Aman Ullah accused and other co-accused had already cut and shifted our wheat crop in the dera of Aman Ullah accused. Confronted not recorded in Exh.DD. I had stated in Exh.DD that Sultan our servant had informed us at Kotmomin about the taking away of wheat crop. Confronted with Exh.DD where Kotmomin is not recorded as the place of information nor the time as 3:00 is recorded in that connection. I had stated in Exh.DD that Nazir Ahmad deceased advised us to go to Mian Iftikhar Ahmad with whom we had good relations and he would find a solution to the problem instead of going to the police and find other remedies. Confronted not so recorded in Exh.DD. I had also stated in Exh.DD that the accused had come from the side of dera of Aman Ullah accused. Confronted not so recorded in Exh.DD. I did not state in my statement Exh.DD that according to Sultan, the accused were present in the disputed land and were taking away wheat after cutting it. I did not state in Exh.DD in my statement before the police that the accused had come from the dera of Aman Ullah instead it is recorded that they were present there. I had stated at the end of the occurrence, all the accused went towards the dera of Aman ullah accused. Confronted with Exh,.DD where not so recorded." Whereas Gul Muhammad while appearing in the witness box as (PW-12) (complainant) deposed during cross-examination which reads as under:-- "I had stated in the FIR that Shujat Ali was also involved in the murder case at Sargodha. Confronted not so recorded in the FIR (Exh.PU) in the above context. I had stated in Exh.PU that from Sargodha we started back by our village in a car. Confronted where car is not mentioned. I had stated in the FIR that we met Sultan Jhakar at Kotmomin when he gave us the information relating to the disputed land. Confronted with Exh.PU, place of meeting with Sultan at Kotmomin is not mentioned. I had stated in Exh.PU that Aman Ullah had cut away the wheat crop from the disputed land along with his gunman. Confronted gunman is not mentioned and it is also not mentioned that the wheat crop had been cut. I had stated in Exh.PU that Shujat and Moazam wanted to go to the police station to lodge the report but I and Nazir Ahmad deceased advised them not to go to the police and I, Manzoor and Nazir would approach Mian Iftikhar to settle the matter. I had also stated in Exh.PU that I had friendly relations with Mian Iftikhar and could get the issue resolved. Confronted all the above facts are not recorded in Exh.PU, either the fact that I and my companion told Shujat and Moazam Ali not to go to police station that the witnesses had friendly relations with Mian Iftikhar and pulled to get the matter settled. I had stated in Exh.PU that the wheat had already been taken away when we reached in the disputed field. Confronted with Exh.PU where not so recorded. I had, stated in Exh.PU that Ashraf accused was armed with rifle and the other accused were armed with guns. Confronted not so recorded in Exh.PU and instead fire arms in that connection are mentioned. The cumulative effect of the evidence of Shujaat Ali (PW-10), Mauzam Ali (PW-11) and Gul Muhammad (PW-12) goes to establish that they had made dishonest improvements regarding the occurrence. The foregoing discussion leads us to the conclusion that prosecution witnesses made dishonest improvements in order to prove their presence, presence of the accused and motive for the occurrence. We have noted that improvements were of such magnitude, which materially affect the case. Such improvements create serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of witnesses. Such material improvements before the court, in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence.

22. As far as motive part of the alleged occurrence is concerned, we have noted that the complainants in FIR (Exh.PU) has specifically mentioned that he had friendly terms with Moazam Ali (PW-11) who got land measuring 2-acres on lease from Iftikhar Ahmad for three years. The said Iftikhar Ahmad had sold out the land in question to Anwar and Ghulam Muhammad about two months ago. On coming to know about sale of land by Iftikhar Ahmad, Moazam Ali (PW-11) obtained status quo order from the civil court by filing suit in which next date of hearing was 25.04.2000 and Moazam Ali (PW-11) had gone to Sargodha to appear in the court where murder case was pending against him whereas Moazam Ali while appearing in the witness box as (PW-11) deposed during cross-examination which reads as under:- "I had stated in Exh.DD that I along with my brother Shujat Ali PW had obtained the above lease. Confronted with, Exh.DD where the name of brother of the witness is not mentioned. I had stated in Exh.DD that the lease comprised of 2-acres located in Killa Nos.15 and 16 of square No.4. Confronted with Exh.DD, whereas square and killa numbers are not mentioned. I had stated in Exh.DD that we had grown wheat crop in the said land which was standing till one day before this occurrence. Confronted not so recorded I had stated in Exh.DD that Aman Ullah accused and other co-accused had already cut and shifted our wheat crop in the dera of Amanullah accused. Confronted not so recorded in Exh.DD. I had stated in Exh.DD that Sultan our servant had informed us at Kotmomin about the taking away of wheat. Confronted with, Exh.DD where Kotmomin is not recorded as the place of information, nor the time as 3:00 p.m. recorded in that connection." Moazam Ali (PW-11) also admitted during cross-examination "it is correct that Aman Ullah and his father had sold the disputed land before the occurrence and a mutation to that effect had also been sanctioned in favour of Anwar and Ghulam Muhammad". However, the said Moazam Ali (PW-11) during cross-examination negates the suggestion that his counsel Tariq Mehmood Kharal, had withdrawn the suit and a stay application on 19.4.2000. Although Moazam Ali (PW-11) voluntarily stated that the case was fixed for 25.04.2000. Moazam Ali also deposed during cross-examination that:- "It is correct that the suit had come to an end after the occurrence. It is incorrect that I had made a false statement even with regard to the dismissal of suit as withdrawn on 19.04.2000." Similarly Shujat Ali while appearing in the witness box as (PW-10) deposed as under:- "I had stated in Exh.DA that I and Moazam PW had grown the crop in the said two Killas of land and the said wheat crops was standing up to 23.04.2000. Confronted not so recorded in Exh.DA. I had stated in Exh.DA that the accused were taking the wheat crop to the dera of Amanullah accused. Confronted not so recorded in Exh.DA. I had stated in Exh.DA that we found that our wheat crop had already been cut from the said wheat and had been taken away to the dera of Aman Ullah, accused. Confronted not so recorded"

23. However, during cross-examination Shujat Ali PW while appearing in the witness box admitted that he along with Dost Muhammad accused (appellant) filed a civil suit before the present occurrence. However, he denied the suggestion that an application for its withdrawal was made before the present occurrence and that it was withdrawn on 19.04.2000. Whereas he deposed during cross-examination that the case was fixed for 25th and in this regard, he produced copy of the suit and the order that it was fixed for 25.04.2000 before the police. Amanullah respondent No.6 (in Crl. Appeal No. 979 of 2005) produced certified copy of the order of civil court in suit titled "Dost Muhammad v. Iftikhar Ahmad etc." dated 19.04.2009 which is available on record as Exh.DE. We have noted that on 19.04.2000 the case filed by Dost Muhammad along with Moazam Ali was got withdrawn by their counsel. We felt that clear picture of motive has been suppressed by the complainant as well as the prosecution witnesses. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellants as well as for respondent No.6 (Aman Ullah) that the mutation was entered in the names of Anwar and Ghulam Muhammad which clearly shows that Amanullah was not owner of the land at the time of alleged occurrence and respondent No.6 has no motive for committing the offence as alleged by the prosecution. The documentary evidence available on record clearly indicates that the version of the complainant given in the FIR and later on, through the evidence nullify the prosecution evidence. We have also noted that the prosecution witnesses have improved their statements which were confronted with their earlier statements made during the investigation, therefore, it could be safely concluded that the incident did not occur on what has been stated but on something else which has been suppressed by the prosecution witnesses. Especially when PW-11 has admitted that the property was already got mutated in the names of Anwar and Ghulam Muhammad which clearly shows that after mutation of the land in the names of Anwar and Ghulam Muhammad, Aman Ullah, respondent No.6 has no concern with the land in dispute especially when the civil suit filed by Moazam Ali was withdrawn on 19.4.2000. It is clear from the above discussion that the prosecution has not been able to put straightforward motive.

24. As far as role of the appellants, namely, Umra son of Anwar and Dost Muhammad is concerned, the complainant-Gul Muhammad (PW-12) in the FIR (Ex.PU) mentioned that Umra son of Anwar along with Nazir Ahmad son of Qadir (since dead) made single fire each which hit Shujjat (PW-10) on his forehead and left shoulder whereas Dost Muhammad fired with his 12-bore gun which hit on the right thigh of Moazzam Ali (PW-11). Thereafter, all the accused made indiscriminate firing which hit at the back side of left hand of Shujjat Ali (PW-10). Shujjat Ali (PW-10) has received eleven (11) injuries. His injury report is Ex.PG. He has stated that Umra son of Anwar, fired a shot hitting him on his left shoulder whereas during cross-examination he deposed that:-- "I had stated in Ex.DA that the fire of Nazir accused had hit me on the forehead, whereas fire of Umra accused had hit me on my left shoulder. Confronted with Ex.DA where it is not recorded distinctly, as to which of the accused hit where. I had stated that I had received fire at the back of my forearm. Confronted with Ex.PA not so recorded". In view of contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witness (PW-10) and lack of corroboration by medicolegal evidence as to multiple number of injuries in the medicolegal certificate (Ex.PG) lead to the conclusion that the said witness has made conscious improvements and as such his statement cannot be believed and acted upon as he did not state anything about his rest of injuries. It is also strange that Shujjat Ali (PW-10) had received injuries by firearm but he was medically examined at 11:45 p.m on 24.4.2000, while the occurrence had taken place at 4/5 p.m, whereas FIR was registered at 7.00 p.m on the same day. However, Dr. Nayyar Abbas (PW-6) deposed that probable duration of injuries was within 6/8 hours. Shujjat Ali (PW-10) has not recorded any explanation for such delay in the medical examination. Umra son of Anwar-appellant is held entitled to the benefit of doubt, for the injury of Shujjat Ali (PW-10). None of the accused persons nominated in the FIR had been attributed any specific role of causing injury to Shujjat Ali (PW-10) on the back of his right hand, rather they were collectively made liable for one injury. Whereas in the FIR, it was mentioned that Shujjat Ali (PW-10) received firearm injury on his left hand, therefore, conflict existed between the medical evidence and prosecution case as set forth in the FIR. The prosecution had nominated 10 accused and three unknown accused to have participated in the occurrence out of which nine (9) nominated accused have been acquitted by the learned trial court. Appeal against their acquittal except Amanullah, respondent No.6 has already been dismissed by this Court. All the nominated and unknown three accused were attributed the role of indiscriminate firing and no specific injury was attributed to any one towards the injured-Shujjat Ali (PW-10). The same role attributed to the acquitted accused, namely, Amanullah son of Mian Iftikhar (since acquitted), Muhammad Ashraf son of Jan Muhammad (since acquitted), Mumtaz son of Nazir (since acquitted), Anwar son of Jan Muhammad (since acquitted), Umar Hayat alias Umra son of Anwar (since acquitted), Muhammad Aslam son of Ghulam Muhammad (since acquitted), Iftikhar son of Sarwar (since acquitted), Ghulam Muhammad son of Bakhsha (since acquitted), Muhammad Aslam son of Ahmad Khan (since acquitted) and three unknown accused by holding that acquitted accused were declared innocent during the investigation and benefit of doubt was extended to them. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Sarfraz alias SAPPI and 2 others v. The State (2000 SCMR 1758) and Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State (2004 SCMR 1185) and observed as under:-- "that eye-witnesses who are disbelieved against some accused persons attributed active and effective roles cannot be believed against the other accused persons"

25. As far as role of the appellant, Dost Muhammad is concerned the injured, Moazzam Ali (PW-11) deposed that Dost Muhammad made fire, which hit on right thigh. We have noticed that allegedly he received injuries of firearm at about 4/5 p.m, however, Dr. Nayar Abbas (PW-6) deposed that he medically examined Moazzam Ali (PW-11) on 24.4.2000 at 11:30 p.m. and probable duration of injuries was within 6/8 hours. The medicolegal certificate is Ex.PF. Had the case been registered at 7.00 p.m and if Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence just soon after the occurrence as deposed by Umer Hayat, Constable (PW-3) that there was no reasons for not getting the injured-Moazzam Ali immediately medically examined. It is strange that one having firearm injury was medically examined after 6/8 hours for which no plausible explanation has been forwarded by the said witness. On the other hand, Dr. Nayyar Abbas (PW-6) declared injury No.1 as "Ghair Jaifah Damiah" falling under section 337-F(i) P.P.C. and the same was simple in nature. Moazzam Ali (PW-11) during cross-examination deposed that:-- "the accused persons had fired the affective shots from a distance of 26-karams from their targets. I was standing close to the deceased when the said shots were made by all the accused."

26. Now question arises that whether it had been proved beyond doubt that the shot was fired by Dost Muhammad at the injured-Moazzam Ali (PW-11). As already stated that the injured-Moazzam Ali (PW-11) deposed that the accused persons had fired from a distance of 26-karams and he also deposed that he had pointed out various places in connection with the occurrence. In other words if all the accused including appellant Dost Muhammad had made fire from a distance of 26-karams by standing at one place, then it is not possible to specify that whose fire hit whom. The possibility that the injury was result of pellet as injury is of the dimension of .75 cm x .75 cm pit shaped with an abrasion of 1 x 1 cm cannot be excluded. Moazzam Ali (PW-11) was also belied by the site plan (Ex.PD). Nasrullah Khan Girdawar (PW-5) who had prepared the site plan, had admitted that:-- "Likewise I have not mentioned factum of being injured Moazzam Ali and Shujjat Ali PW from any accused" Whereas Moazzam Ali (PW-11) deposed during cross-examination that he had pointed out various places in connection with the occurrence but he did not mention that where he received injuries and by whom. Thus the conviction under section 337-F(i) P.P.C. for causing injury to Moazzam Ali read with section 149, P.P.C. cannot be maintained and he (Dost Muhammad) is acquitted of the charge.

27. We find that the learned trial court convicted the appellants, Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf, Umra son of Sultan (In Crl. Appeal No.482 of 2005) for offence under sections 324/149/337-A(i)/149 P.P.C., 337F(i)/149 P.P.C., 337-F(ii)/149 P.P.C. and 337(F(i) P.P.C. for causing injuries to Shujjat Ali and Moazzam Ali, whereas appellant, Dost Muhammad (In Crl. Appeal No.1372/2005) was also convicted by the learned trial court for offence under sections 324, 149 P.P.C., 337-A(i)/149 P.P.C., 337-F(i)/149 P.P.C. and 337-F(i)/149 P.P.C. for causing injuries to Shujjat Ali PW. The learned trial court also convicted the appellants, Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf, Umra son of Sultan and Dost Muhammad for offence under section 302(b)/149 and 148 P.P.C. It has been noticed by us that Aslam-appellant, Umra son of Sultan-appellant and Dost Muhammad-appellant had admittedly not caused any injury on the person of the deceased. From the evidence on record, any attempt upon the person of the deceased in furtherance of the common intention is not proved. For the purpose of incurring the vicarious liability for the offence committed by a member of such unlawful assembly under the provisions of section 149 P.P.C., the liability of other members of unlawful assembly for the offence committed during the continuance of the occurrence rests upon the fact whether the other members knew before hand that the offence actually committed was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object. The evidence on the record, therefore, went to show that the appellants did not have the common intention to kill the deceased. Similarly appellants, Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf and Umra did not have the common intention to cause injuries to Shujjat Ali (PW-10) and Moazzam Ali (PW-11). In the similar way appellant-Dost Muhammad did not have the common intention to cause injuries to Shujjat Ali (PW-10). As has been shown, they did not make any fire shot towards the deceased and injured witnesses. For determination of the common object of the unlawful assembly, the conduct of each of the members of the unlawful assembly and motive for the crime, are some of the relevant consideration for conviction under section 149 P.P.C. In the case in hand the conviction of the appellants is based on the testimony of three witnesses, thus their involvement is required to be examined by keeping in mind the factors noted above. It appears from the evidence of Shujjat Ali (PW-10), Moazzam Ali (PW-11) and Gul Muhammad (PW-12) that on return from court on fateful day, Sultan their servant told them that Aman Ullah (respondent No.6 in Crl. Appeal No.979/2005) along with twelve other persons were taking wheat crops after cutting it. On receiving this information, Moazzam Ali (PW-11) along with others went towards Dera of Iftikhar Ahmad at 4.05 p.m and when they were at some distance from the said Dera, accused persons, namely, Aman Ullah, Nazir Ahmad, Dost Muhammad, Afzal, Anwar, Umra son of Muhammad Anwar, Aslam, Umra son of Sultan, Muhammad Aslam son of Mutali, Aslam son of Ghulam Muhammad along with three unknown accused persons while armed with deadly weapons were present there whereas aforesaid prosecution witnesses i.e PW-10, PW11 and PW-12 made material improvements in their cross-examination, which was also got confronted with their earlier statements. Shujjat Ali (PW-10) deposed during cross-examination which reads as under:- "I had stated before the police that on our return journey when we reached village Kot Moman, Sultan PW met me and informed me, that Amanullah accused along with others had been cutting wheat crops from the disputed field and were taking away the same. Confronted with police statement Exh.DA where it is not mentioned that the above information was imparted to the witness at village Kot Moman". Likewise, Moazam Ali (PW-11) deposed during cross-examination which reads as under:- "I had stated in Exh.DD that Aman Ullah accused and the other co-accused had already cut and shifted our wheat crop in the dera of Amanullah accused. Confronted not so recorded in Exh.DD. I had stated in Exh.DD that Sultan our servant had informed us at Kot Koman about taking away of wheat, Confronted in Exh.DD where Kot Moman is not so recorded as the place of occurrence nor the time as 3.00 p. m. is recorded in that connection". Similarly, Gull Muhammad (PW-12) deposed during cross-examination which reads as under:-- "I had stated in the FIR that we met Sultan Jhakhar at Kot Moman when he gave us the information relating to the disputed land. Confronted with Exh.PU place of meeting Sultan at Kot Moman is not mentioned. I had stated in Exh.PU that Aman Ullah had cut away the wheat crop from the disputed land along with his gunman. Confronted gunman is not mentioned and it is also not mentioned that the wheat crop had been cut". It reveals that the complainant along with eye-witnesses/injured witnesses and deceased came to the dera of Iftikhar Ahmad to settle the matter. In our view the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused party had cut down the wheat crop from the land in dispute. However, it is proved that the complainant party came at the spot and was also armed with firearm. Shujjat Ali while appearing in the witness box as PW-10 deposed during cross-examination which reads as under:-- "We had no firearm nor we resorted to firing. Bashir Ahmad, S.I. also investigated this case. I did not state before Bashir Ahmed S.I. On 08.05.2000 during investigation on my statement Ex.DB that at the time of occurrence we had also fire arm and we had fired 8/11 shots. Confronted where it is so recorded.

28. There is nothing on record to indicate that accused persons had any prior knowledge that the complainant party is coming at the place of occurrence. In our view with regard to the incident, evidence of Sultan was material and there was no reason or rhyme for non-examining Sultan who first of all rendered information to the complainant and the eye-witnesses, as well as no material is available on record to establish that appellants were knowing any intention of any other accused to commit an offence or likelihood of the commission of any offence including the offence punishable under Section 302, P.P.C. or under Section 337, P.P.C. by any other members of the assembly. There is no overt act on the part of these appellants. As such, their conviction under Sections 302, 149, 337-F(i), 149, 337-A(i), 149, 337-F(ii), 149 and 324, 149 is also not proper.

29. We have noticed that no doubt certain empties were allegedly recovered from the place of occurrence on 25.4.2000 but there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that weapons/guns P-6, P-9 and P-15 had matched with the crime empties recovered from the spot. Contrary to it, column No.23 of the inquest report, prepared on 24.04.2000, is blank and reflects that no crime empties were recovered from the place of occurrence. Thus there is nothing on the record to suggest that the weapons recovered from Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf, Umra son of Sultan and Dost Muhammad had been used during the occurrence. The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 148 P.P.C. in our opinion is not well founded. We find that the learned trial court also convicted the appellant, namely, Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf (in Crl. Appeal No.532/2005) for offence under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965. In this context, we noticed that Bashir Ahmad, S.I. (PW17) deposed that on 26.04.2001 Muhammad Aslam son of Ashraf got recovered 12-bore gun P-15 from bamboo field in the area of Kotmomin. The recovery of the gun P-.15 from garden after almost one year of the registration of murder case does not appeal the reason. No independent witness has come forward to support the recovery proceedings. Therefore, we are of the view that the case against Muhammad Aslam son of Ashraf has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, we allow the Crl. Appeal No.532 of 2005 and conviction of the appellant, namely, Muhammad Aslam son of Ashraf in case FIR No.184 of 2001, dated 26.04.2001, offence under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965, registered at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha is set aside. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

30. We have noted that the above said improvements made by the witnesses changed the mode and manner of the occurrence mentioned in the First Information Report (Exh.PU). We have also noted that the prosecution witnesses, namely, Shujat Ali (PW-10), Moazam Ali (PW-11) and the complainant Gul Muhammad (PW-12) concealed the admitted facts during cross-examinatiop that Amanulah was declared innocent in three successive investigations. However, Moazam Ali while appearing in the witness box as (PW-11) deposed during cross-examination which reads as under:-- "It is correct that we had made the application for the transfer of investigation to SP, Mianwali because till then all the police officers had come to the conclusion that Aman Ullah did not fire during the occurrence and was innocent. Ghulam Hussain, ASI (PW-7) who produced secondary evidence on behalf of Muhammad Bashir, SI, first Investigating Officer who died during the proceedings of instant case deposed during cross-examination that according to the record before me Muhammad Saeed Wazeer, Ziarat Kiyanai, SP and SP, Mianwali had conducted that Aman Ullah was not present at the spot nor he fired at any body. I have given my evidence during examination-in-chief basing on the record prepared by Muhammad Bashir, SI and other investigating officers."

31. In this view of the matter it is apparent that the witnesses has made dishonest improvements in order to justify their presence at the spot and where they statedly received the information from Sultan, their servant and the place where accused persons were present at the time of occurrence. In view of the matter, we are inclined to brush aside the evidence of these witnesses and as such no implicit reliance can be placed upon them.

32. From the aforesaid detailed discussion, it becomes manifestly clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

33. We, therefore, accept in toto Criminal Appeal No.1372/2005 filed by Dost Muhammad, appellant and Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2005 filed by Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf and Umra son of Sultan, appellants as a result whereof conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 07.3.2005 is set aside and the appellants are ordered to be acquitted of the charge in case FIR No.168 of 2000, dated 24.04.2000, offences under Sections 302, 324, 379, 427, 148, 149, P.P.C, registered at Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha. They are on bail, therefore, their sureties are hereby discharged.

34. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that Nazir son of Qadir, appellant (in Crl. Appeal No.529/2005) died during the pendency of this appeal, hence the appeal in hand to the extent of Nazir son of Qadir, appellant (Crl. Appeal No.529/2005) is abated and the same is disposed of as such.

35. As far as Criminal Appeal No.532 of 2005 filed by Muhammad Aslam son of Muhammad Ashraf, appellant registered under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965 is concerned , the same is also allowed, as a result whereof conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court vide judgment dated 07.3.2005 is set aside and the appellant is ordered to be acquitted of the charge in case FIR No.184 of 2001, dated 26.04.2001, offence under Section 13 of Arms Ordinance No.XX of 1965, registered at the Police Station Kot Momin, District Sargodha. Muhammad Aslam, appellant is on bail, therefore, his surety is discharged.

36. Criminal Appeal No.979 of 2005 filed by Gul Muhammad, complainant under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. against acquittal to the extent of Aman Ullah, respondent No. 6 is hereby dismissed in view of the observations made above. MH/D-8/L Order accordingly.