1988 PLP 584 (MLD)

(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 302, 307, 148 & 149‑‑Acquittal‑‑Once an accused person is acquitted, strong and exceptional grounds, held, would be required for interference. Ch. MA. Majeed Bajwa for Petitioner. The facts giving rise to this Criminal Revision briefly are that Noor Muhammad, Muhammad Iqbal, Abdul Jabbar, Muhammad Siddiq and Sher Muhammad respondents were jointly tried under sections 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. on the charge of murder of Muhammad Saleem and murderous assault on Rehmat Ali PW by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. The respondents when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied all the incriminating circumstances. In reply to question why this case and why the PWs have deposed against you?" Noor Muhammad alias Noori respondent No.1, stated:‑‑ "I did not participate in the occurrence. In fact I was tethering the cattle when I heard a noise and saw that Iqbal gave barchhi blow to Saleem. Jabbar gave churri blow to Rehmat and Sher Muhammad gave brick blow to Rehmat. Siddique stood aside. Then co‑accused Sher, etc. brought me to the Baithak of Alam. They considered the matter and said that the man had been killed. They then brought me to the residence of Shaukat. Then they concocted a story and by giving me churri blows injured me in order to make a cross‑case. Then Shaukat Gill, Nazar and Alam produced me before the S.P." They did not produce any evidence in defence. The learned trial Court while disbelieving the prosecution version and believing defence plea, acquitted the respondents of the charge.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have been acquitted without legal and factual justification, inasmuch as all the respondents have been named in the F.I.R., that they have been attributed specific part in the commission of crime; that the three eye‑witnesses including Rehmat Ali P.W. 11 have supported the allegations against the respondents; that Noori Muhammad alias Noor in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. stated that the respondents Muhammad Iqbal, Abdul Jabbar, Siddiq and Sher Muhammad had caused injuries to the deceased and Rehmat Ali petitioner in his presence and that the reasons given by the trial Court for the acquittal of the respondents are neither cogent nor sound; that evidence has not been appreciated in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts for appreciation of such like evidence and that since the presence of Rehmat Ali was proved by the fact of injuries on his person, therefore, the trial Court should have believed his evidence and that the medical evidence supports the prosecution case.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the trial Court has disbelieved the motive, ocular evidence and incriminating recovery. Muhammad Iqbal, Abdul Jabbar, Muhammad Siddiq and Sher'Muhammad respondents were declared innocent during the Investigation and Noor Muhammad alias Noori was challaned to face trial. It was during the trial of Noor Muhammad respondent No. 1 that the trial Court after recording statements of some witnesses summoned respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to face trial; that the learned trial Court has applied conscious mind to the entire evidence and the circumstances appearing in the case; that the trial Court has given sound and cogent reasons for disbelieving motive, ocular evidence as well as the evidence of recovery. The trial Court has discussed material evidence in para' 17 of its', judgment. I feel fully satisfied with the discussion and the conclusion arrived at by' the trial Court with regard to the credibility of the eye‑witnesses. The trial Court has also considered the statement made by Noor Muhammad alias Noori respondent recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. There can be no two opinions that statement of an accused recorded under sections 342, Cr.P.C. cannot be used against his co‑accused. During cross‑examination it was suggested that Noor Muhammad had acted in exercise of the right of self defence. Strangely enough in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. he stated that the deceased was done to death by respondents Nos. 2 to

5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that statement of Noor Muhammad under section 342, Cr.P.C. which was not on oath and was also not subjected to cross‑examination by respondents Nos. 2 to 5 cannot be used in convicting respondents Nos. 2 to

5. It is well settled that once an accused person is acquitted strong and exceptional grounds would be required for interference which I do not see in the case in hand. For what has been said above, the revision is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./R‑69/L Petition dismissed.