2022 P Cr (PLP)

SADAQAT ALI KHAN, J.

Appellant (Yasir Rauf) along with his co-accused Ishtiaq Ahmad, Shahid Rauf and Tanveer Ahmad (since acquitted) has been tried by learned trial Court in case FIR No.63 dated 29.02.2012 offences under sections 302, 324, 337-D, 337-F(iii), 337-F(v), 148 and 149, P.P.C. Police Station City Bhakkar, District Bhakkar, and was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 19.09.2015 as under:- Yasir Rauf (appellant) Under section 302(b), P.P.C. He was sentenced to LIFE Imprisonment for committing Qatl-i-amd of deceased Mesam Temaar along with compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- payable to legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in his favour.

2. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. Mesam Temaar was done to death whereas Muhammad Hammad Hassan (CW-1) and Zia Ullah (CW-2) sustained injuries during the occurrence took place on 29.02.2012 at 05:30 p.m. at Abbas Chowk, FIR was lodged on 29.02.2012 at 07:00 p.m. on the statement of Exh.PC made by Mureed Abbas (PW-15) uncle (Phoopha) of the deceased against appellant (Yasir Rauf), Ishtiaq Ahmad, Shahid Rauf and Tanveer Ahmad. Mureed Abbas (PW-15) and Ammar Yasir (PW-16) (Brother of deceased) while claiming themselves to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence stated in their statements before the police that fire shot made by Shahid Rauf accused (since acquitted) hit on the abdomen of Mesam Temaar (deceased). Contrary to this, Dr. Mohammad Rizwan Aslam (PW-9) who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mesam Temaar (deceased) observed 2.B injury as an exit wound on his abdomen. Both the eye-witnesses to bring the case in line with the medical evidence while making dishonest improvements stated before the trial Court that fire shot made by Shahid Rauf accused (since acquitted) hit on the back of Mesam Temaar (deceased) which shatters their credibility. Both the eye-witnesses further stated in their statements before the trial Court that fire shot made by Yasir Rauf (appellant) hit on the left leg of Mesam Temaar (deceased). Fire shot made by Tanveer Ahmad accused (since acquitted) hit on the back of Mohammad Hammad Hassan injured (CW-1). Likewise, fire shot made by Ishtiaq Ahmad accused (since acquitted) hit on the left knee of Mohammad Hammad Ahmad injured (CW-1) whereafter all the accused made joint firing as a result of which Zia Ullah (CW-2) sustained injuries. Contrary to this, Mohammad Hammad Hassan injured (CW-1) and Zia Ullah injured (CW-2) while appearing before the trial Court did not support the version of the prosecution and stated that two persons made firing at the place of occurrence as a result of which they and Mesam Temaar (deceased) sustained injuries. They had not nominated appellant and his accused (since acquitted) in their statements before the trial Court. Even otherwise, Tanveer Ahmad, Shahid Rauf and Ishtiaq Ahmad accused who were attributed injuries on the person of deceased as well as on the persons of injured CWs i.e. Mohammad Hammad Hassan (CW-1) and Zia Ullah (CW-2) have been acquitted by the trial Court by disbelieving the evidence of both the eye-witnesses i.e. Mureed Abbas (PW-15) and Ammar Yasir (PW-16). Complainant/State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal as stated by learned counsel for the appellant. In these circumstances, same evidence cannot be believed in absence of the independent corroborative piece of evidence which is conspicuously missing in the present case. Reliance is placed on case titled "Shahbaz v. The State" (2016 SCMR 1763).

4. Recovery of pistol on pointing out of Yasir Rauf (appellant) in presence of negative report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency is not only inconsequential rather draws an adverse inference.

5. In view of the above discussion, I entertain serious doubt in my mind regarding participation of the appellant in this case. It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused then he would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace or concession, but as of right.

6. For the foregoing reasons, criminal appeal filed by the appellant is allowed, his conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial Court through impugned judgment are hereby set-aside. Appellant (Yasir Rauf) is acquitted of the charges. He is present on bail. His surety stands discharged. SA/Y-3/L Appeal allowed.