2025 PLP 2521 (YLR)

Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen, J.

This common judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal No.(S)71/ 2024 and Criminal Revision Petition No.(S)16/2024.

2. The Criminal Appeal No.(S)71/ 2024 has been filed by the appellants against the judgment dated 05th August 2024 (hereinafter "the impugned judgment") passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sibi in Sessions case No.06/2022 (FIR No.06/2022, Police Station City Sibi) whereby the appellants Khuda Bakhsh son of Saifal, Shahzad son of Allah Dina, Muhammad Sharif alias Haji Gul son of Muhammad Yousaf, Qurban Ali son of Ghulam Nabi, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Nadeem sons of Muhammad Hashim were convicted and sentenced as under: (i) to suffer life imprisonment in three counts for committing the murder of deceased namely Malik Azizullah, Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Akhter as Tazir due to mitigating circumstances under section 302(b) read with section 149 P.P.C and to pay compensation Rs.500,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to the legal heirs of each deceased in term of section 544-A Cr.P.C; in default of payment of compensation amount, the convicts shall further suffer six months S.I. (ii) All the convicts namely Khuda Bakhsh son of Saifal, Shahzad son of Allah Dina, Muhammad Sharif alias Haji Gul son of Muhammad Yousaf, Qurban Ali son of Ghulam Nabi, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Nadeem sons of Muhammad Hashim are sentenced under section 324 read with section 149 P.P.C to suffer R.I for five (05) years each with fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each; in default of payment of fine, the convicts to further suffer two (02) months S.I. (iii) All the convicts namely Khuda Bakhsh son of Saifal, Shahzad son of Allah Dina, Muhammad Sharif alias Haji Gul son of Muhammad Yousaf, Qurban Ali son of Ghulam Nabi, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Nadeem sons of Muhammad Hashim are convicted and sentenced under section 337-D/149 P.P.C to suffer R.I for five (05) years and to pay Arsh amounting to Rs.22,52,634/- as one third of the Diyat amount Rs.67,57,902/- collectively to pay equal share of Rs.22,52,634/- and the amount of Arsh shall be equally distributed among the injured namely Baro Khan, Muhammad Ashraf and Mureed Khan; in default whereof, the convicts shall further undergo one month S.I. (iv). All the convicts namely Khuda Bakhsh son of Saifal, Shahzad son of Allah Dina, Muhammad Sharif alias Haji Gul son of Muhammad Yousaf, Qurban Ali son of Ghulam Nabi, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Nadeem sons of Muhammad Hashim are sentenced under section 337-F(i), P.P.C and to suffer R.I for one (01) year and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each as Daman to be paid to each injured and in default whereof, the convicts shall undergo for fifteen (15) days S.I. All the sentences awarded to the appellants were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.

3. The Criminal Revision Petition No.(S) 16/2024 has been filed by the petitioner (injured) against the impugned judgment dated 05th August 2024 passed by learned trial Court in Sessions case No.06/2022 (FIR No.06/2022, Police Station City Sibi), whereby the petitioner has prayed for enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent Nos.1 to 6.

4. Facts of the case are that in pursuance of PW-1 Muhammad Saeed's application (Ex: P/1-A), a criminal case vide FIR No.06/2022 dated 10.01.2022 under sections 302, 324, 147, 148, 149 P.P.C was registered with Police Station City Sibi with the averments that he is resident of village Korak, Tehsil and District Sibi and is a government employee; that on 08.01.2022 at approximately 12:30 p.m. his cousin Mohammad Baro Khan along with his companions namely Malik Azizullah son of Malik Dad caste Marghzani, Mohammad Imran son of Dhani Bakhsh caste Saafi, Akhtar son of Elahi Bakhsh caste Marghzani, Mureed Khan son of Wazir Khan caste Marghzani, Ashraf son of Wali Muhammad caste Marghzani, Ishaq Khan son of Haji Mohabbat Khan caste Barozai, Sajjad Ahmed son of Abdullah Caste Saafi, Irfan son of Abdul Latif Caste Marghzani went to offer Fateha Khawani of Imam Dad Kheri's at his residence on Noorpur Road, which is located near the house of accused Mustafa son of Ghulam Nabi caste Ghulam Bolak; that on their return, at approximately 1:15 p.m. as the vehicle passed the house of the accused and went a little further, from behind, a white double-cabin Hilux, in which accused Mustafa, Qurban Ali, Hashim, Mehboob alias Babu alias babul sons of Ghulam Nabi, all by caste Ghulam Bolak were sitting/riding, while the accused Sahib Khan, Aslam, Sabir, Nadeem sons of Hashim by caste Ghulam Bolak and Shehzad son of Allah Din, Khuda Bakhsh son of Saifal caste Channa and two other unknown persons to whom he can identify upon seeing, all armed with firearms arrived on motorcycles; that they stopped the vehicle and surrounded it from all four sides; that Mustafa along with his brothers Qurban, Hashim and Mehboob alias Babu alias Babul, got out of the vehicle, armed with firearms; that Mustafa brandished a Kalashnikov and said that ''You killed my son Chakar, and now how dare you pass in front of his house alive?' and all the accused aimed their weapons on them; as all the persons tried to get out of the vehicle to save their lives, at that moment, the accused Mustafa fired with a Kalashnikov at Azizullah, who was sitting in the front seat and died (martyred) on the spot; the accused Qurban fired with a Kalashnikov at Mohammad Imran who died (martyred) at the spot; the accused Mehboob alias Babu alias Babul fired with a Kalashnikov and martyred Akhtar; the accused Hashim and Sahib Khan fired with Kalashnikovs at Baro Khan who severely injured, while Aslam, Sabir and Nadeem fired at Mureed and Ashraf with LMG/ SMG etc., who were severely injured. However, Ishaq, Irfan and Sajjad miraculously remained safe; upon hearing the gunfire, the police arrived at the scene, the accused abandoned their vehicle and motorcycles and by brandishing their weapons escaped towards their homes; the police arrested accused Khuda Bakhsh and Shehzad with their weapons at the spot; the injured and deceased were shifted to Civil Hospital Sibi by the police in a government vehicle; that on receiving information, he reached the Civil Hospital Sibi and found Baro Khan and the injured unconscious; that later on Baro Khan was shifted to Quetta for medical treatment; that today, after regaining consciousness, Baro Khan narrated the entire incident to him; that the motive behind the incident is old enmity/murder between the parties, hence this case.

5. On completion of the investigation, Challan of the case was submitted; trial commenced, charge was framed and read over to the appellants, to which they did not plead guilty, and claimed trial.

6. To substantiate accusation, the prosecution produced and examined the following witnesses: PW-1 Muhammad Saeed (complainant), who brought on record application for registration of FIR as (Ex.P/1-A) and subsequent application for nomination of accused as (Ex.P/1-B). PW-2 Jamal Shah. He is recovery witness who brought on record recovery memo. of bloodstained clothes of injured and deceased persons as Ex.P/2-A and also produced sealed parcels, sample of seal and bloodstained clothes as Article P/1 to P/18. PW-3 Dr. Lal Muhammad Magsi, Medical Officer DHQ Hospital Sibi. He examined the dead bodies of deceased persons and injured persons and brought on record MLC/death certificate as Ex.P/3-A to Ex.P/3-F. PW-4 Muhammad Ishaq. He is eye-witness of the incident. He produced his affidavit Ex.P/4-A by nominating accused Muhammad Sharif alias Haji Gul. PW-5 Gul Sher Sub-Inspector. He brought on record site inspection memo. (Ex.P/5-A), recovery memo. of three smart/touch mobiles phones (Ex.P/5-B), recovery memo. of one Digital Camera along with two batteries (black-in-colour) (Ex.P/5-C), recovery memo. of empties (Ex.P/5-D), recovery memo. of bloodstained earth (injured and deceased) (Ex.P/5-E), recovery memo. of vehicle (Ex.P/5-F), recovery memo. of double door Hilux vehicle along with six motorcycles as (Ex.P/5-G) and also produced parcels, sample of seal three torch mobiles, digital camera, two batteries, empties of 57 Kalashnikovs, 130 SMG, 10 09mm, 4 LMG, 4 303-bore, four bloodstained sticks, vehicle CS3562, vehicle double, six motorcycles 125, CD-70 and Unique as Article P/19 to Article P/45. PW-6 Muhammad Ibrahim. He brought on record recovery memo. (Ex.P/6-A). PW-7 Muhammad Ashraf. He is eye-witness as well as victim in the instant case. PW-8 Baro Khan. He is eye-witness as well as victim of the incident. PW-9 Mureed Khan. He is eye-witness as well as victim of the incident. PW-10 Muhammad Yousaf, Head Constable. He brought on record recovery memo. of photocopy of recovery memo. of FIR No.02/2022 (Ex.P/10-A), recovery memo. of photocopy of recovery memo. of FIR No.03/2022 (Ex.P/10-B), recovery memo. of photocopy of recovery memo. of FIR No.04/2022 (Ex.P/10-C), recovery memo. of 23 pages of miscellaneous documents (Ex.P/10-D) and also brought on record photocopy of recovery memos. of FIRs Nos.02/2022, 03/2022 and 04/2022, 23 pages of miscellaneous court documents as Article P/46 to Ex.P/51. PW-11 Ghulam Ali Sub-Inspector. He is the circumstantial witness of the incident. PW-12 Ghous Bakhsh Sub-Inspector. He brought on record recovery memo. of three FIRs (Ex.P/12-A) and FIRs Nos.02/2022, 03/2022 and 04/2022 as Article P/52 to Article P/54. PW-13 Ishtiaq Ahmed Sub-Inspector. He brought on record recovery memo. of personal search and recovery of pistol 09mm along with three live cartridges (Ex.P/13-A), recovery memo. of three arms license (Ex.P/13-B), recovery memo. of two touch mobiles (Ex.P/13-C), he also brought on record parcels, sample of seals, 9mm pistol, three live cartridges, one test fire, three arms license, two touch mobiles as Article /55 to Article P/62. PW-14 Zaka-ul-Hassan I.P. 1st Investigating Officer (the 'I.O'). He is I.O of the case, who conducted investigation, brought on record FIR (Ex.P/14-A), site map (Ex.P/14-B), Inquest report of deceased persons (Ex.P/14-C to Ex.P/14-E), roznamcha report (Ex.P/14-F), four pictures of damaged vehicles (Ex.P/14-G), docket report of 9mm pistol (Ex.P/14-H), Photostat documents of motorcycles of Mehboob, Chakar, Hashim, Muhammad Sahib Jan (Ex.P/14-J-1 to Ex.P/14-J-4), docket report of bloodstained clothes of injured and deceased (Ex.P/14-K), incomplete supplementary Challan (Ex.P/14-L), incomplete supplementary Challan (Ex.P/14-M). PW-15 Muhammad Aslam S.I (2nd I.O). He also conducted investigation and brought on record incomplete Challans (Ex.P/15-A and Ex.P/15-B). PW-16 Maqsood Akber I.P. (3rd I.O). He conducted inquiry of the case and brought on record supplementary incomplete Challan (Ex.P/16-A), FSL report regarding Human bloodstained (Ex.P/16-B), FSL report of weapon as (Ex.P/16-C), correct incomplete supplementary Challans (Ex.P/16-D and Ex.P/16-E).

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, the appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein they denied the prosecution allegations and claimed trial. However, the appellants neither recorded their statements on oath nor produced any witness in their defense.

8. After concluding evidence and hearing arguments, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment awarded conviction and sentence to the appellants as mentioned in para-1 above, hence this appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the instant case; that there are glaring contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that nothing incriminating is available on record to connect the appellants with the commission of the alleged offence; that the prosecution evidence is suffering from infirmities and material contradictions; that the FIR was lodged with inordinate delay of 02 days for which no plausible reasons were given by the prosecution; that the statements of the prosecution witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C were recorded at belated stage which has caused serious doubts on the version of the prosecution; that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt; that benefit of doubt ought to have been extended in favour of the appellants, but the trial Court has failed to do so which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants is result of misreading and mis-appreciation of evidence by the trial Court.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as Additional Prosecutor General while opposing the appeal and supporting the impugned judgment stated that sufficient convincing incriminating evidence is available on record to connect the appellants with the commission of the offence; that there exist no doubt in the case of the prosecution; that sufficient incriminating evidence is available on record to connect the appellants with the commission of the offence and that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants is based on proper appreciation of the evidence by the trial Court, warranting no interference by this Court.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their assistance.

12. A bare perusal of the record reflects that in the instant case, the incident wherein the paternal cousin of the complainant was got injured along with two others and three persons were done to death, took place on 08.01.2022 at 01:15 p.m. However, the matter was reported to the Police by the complainant on 10.01.2022 at 09:10 p.m, approximately more than 55 hours. Admittedly, the complainant was not an eye-witness to the incident, the detailed were conveyed through Baro Khan (PW-8) who after regaining consciousness at Combine Military Hospital ('CMH') Quetta, recounted the event that led to the filing of the FIR. Although, examination of the prosecution's case indicates that there were allegedly other eye-witnesses present at the scene i.e. Muhammad Ishaq (PW-4), Irfan and Sajjad, along with injured witnesses Muhammad Ashraf (PW-7) and Mureed Khan (PW-9). These persons were reportedly conscious and present, but neither they nor the complainant took the imitative to lodge a police complaint.

13. It appears that the complainant delayed filing the FIR to seek consultation and deliberation regarding fixing a responsibility on the accused party for the alleged incident, potentially in collaboration with PW-8 Baro Khan. As stated by the complainant, PW-8 Bar Khan was admitted to CMH Quetta, and the complainant, in pain, came from Sibi to Quetta but did not bother to consult the other alleged eye-witnesses and injured witnesses available at Sibi at the doorstep of the complainant. This raises the possibility that the other injured and eye-witnesses were either deemed untrustworthy at that time or lacked sufficient knowledge of the assailants to identify them or they were not the eye-witnesses. Such considerations underscores the inherent complexities for the situation and introduce reasonable doubt regarding the credibility of the complainant's accounts particularly as it appears influenced by PW-8 Baro Khan, which ultimately calls into question the reliability of the prosecution's case.

14. Even otherwise, the said PW-8 Baro Khan was present at Sibi initially and Dr. Lal Muhammad PW-3, examined him and other injured witnesses. PW-3 has not mentioned that they were unconscious, nor do Medico Legal Certificates ('MLCs') issued to said Baro Khan and other injured witnesses reveal such a fact. Although the police arrived at the place of occurrence soon-after the incident and were also shifted to the hospital by the Police at that time, none of the above witnesses, victim of the alleged incident, requested the police to lodge the FIR.

15. The record further reveals that the prosecution has not produced the documents of treatment of Baro Khan to be admitted to CMH Quetta. These were substantial documents that could substantiate the claim that he was being admitted to CMH Quetta, and the same could also verify whether he was unconscious, and if so, when he came in conscious. It is worth mentioning that the I.O recorded his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C on 22.01.2022 instead of 10.01.2022. As such, the delay has not properly been explained by the prosecution in reporting the matter to the police. Such delayed FIR on the part of the complainant shows dishonestly and that it was lodged with deliberation and consultation. Reliance in this regard may be made to the cases reported title as Muhammad Wasif Khan v. The State, 2011 PCr.LJ 470 and Amir Muhammad Khan v. The State, 2023 SCMR

566. The relevant portion of Amir Muhammad's case is reproduced herein below: 7. "A bare perusal of the record reflects that the instant case, wherein the father of the complainant was done to death, took place at 09:00 a.m. on 06.12.2012 whereas the crime report was lodged at 02:10 p.m. i.e. after more than five hours of the occurrence. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 21 kilometers. Nowhere in the entire evidence, the prosecution has explained the reason for the delay in reporting the matter to the Police with such a delay. The delayed FIR shows dishonesty on the part of the complainant and that it was lodged with deliberation and consultation....".

16. As stated above, the alleged incident took place on 08.01.2022, on the said date without registration of FIR, the Investigating Officer (I.O) of the case arrived at the site along with many other police officials and commenced with the investigation of the case by referring the injured to the Hospital, preparing site map, collecting empties, preparing recovery memos. and sealing the empties in parcel, collecting the bloodstained earth, recording the statements without lodging the FIR, which was lodged on 10.01.2022 two days after the full-fledged investigation. It is observed that despite getting knowledge of commission of a cognizable offence, the I.O or any other police officer did not register the FIR of a cognizable offence. There was no justification for delaying the registration of FIR. Even, if the complainant party was reluctant to lodge the FIR, the SHO of the concerned police station could have lodged the FIR, as it is incumbent upon him to record the FIR of a cognizable offence under section 154 Cr.P.C and then to investigate the case. Section 154 Cr.P.C and Rule 24.1 of the Police Rules 1934 uses the word "shall" making it incumbent upon the police officer to register FIR into prescribed register. Section 154 Cr.P.C and Rule 24.1 of Police Rules 1934 is hereby reproduced herein below:

154. Information in cognizable cases. Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer in-charge of a police-station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant, and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe in this behalf". 24.1: First Information how recorded.--(1) Sections 154 and 165, Code of Criminal Procedure, provide that every information relating to an offence, whether cognizable or non-cognizable, shall be recorded in writing by the officer in charge of a police station".

17. The above mentioned mandatory provisions of law clearly indicates that the police authority has failed to perform its statutory duty under section 154 Cr.P.C and 24.1 of Police Rules, 1934, therefore, the delay occurred in the registration of FIR has benefited the appellants. As it is settled by the superior Courts that the main object of the prompt FIR is to rule out the possibility of deliberation, consultation and inquiry as there is tendency to involve innocent people during the interval. It is well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that when law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, the same must be done accordingly and if the prescribed manner was not followed, it would be presumed that the same had not been done in accordance with law. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Noman Mansoor v. State, PLD 2024 SC 805.

18. As stated above, in the instant case, the investigation even before the FIR, which is against the dictum "the investigation follows FIR", but in the instant case, the FIR has followed the investigation, which is a material illegality committed by the police authorities. Reliance is placed on the cases of Iftikhar Hussain v. The State, 2004 SCMR 1185 and Muhammad Wasif Khan v. The State, 2011 PCr.LJ

470. The relevant portion of Iftikhar Hussain's case is reproduced herein below: 11 ...Where FIR is recorded after preliminary investigations, the obvious presumption which follows is that the witnesses were not present at the place of occurrence, the accused were not identifiable and after due deliberation a story was cooked up fitting each accused in the occurrence according to the plan. In the criminal cases, FIR is the corner stone of the case and where recording of the FIR becomes doubtful then the whole prosecution version and the story set out in the FIR itself would be doubtful.

19. According to the statement of PW-1, PW-4, PW-8 and PW-9, the witnesses Irfan and Sajjad were also accompanying them at the relevant time and the names of such witnesses also appeared in the Challan, but the evidence of said witnesses were withheld by the prosecution without any plausible reasons, therefore, a presumption under Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 can fairly be drawn that had the said witnesses been examined in the Court their evidence would have been unfavorable to the prosecution. Reliance is placed on the case of Hunar Shah alias Anar Shah and another v. Khan Zad Gul and another, 2014 YLR 1180, wherein it was held as under: "The inference regarding non-production of this important independent witness would go against the prosecution that had he been produced his statement would not have been favoured the prosecution. It would also reflect that the prosecution wanted to suppress material evidence".

20. Since the complainant is not an eye-witness, the prosecution's case relies heavily on the statements of PW-4 Muhammad Ishaq, PW-7 Muhammad Ashraf and PW-9 Mureed Khan. It is interesting to note that PW-7 and PW-9 were injured; they were shifted to the Hospital in police van along with police officials. According to their statements, they met with police while conscious. However, their statements were recorded with a delay of two days after the alleged occurrence, while PW-4 is not injured and present at the same station and has meetings with I.O, he still does not request for recording of the statement nor does the I.O record his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.

21. As mentioned earlier, while police conducted his investigation and completed all formalities before lodging the FIR, including recording the statements of police officials, there was no apparent reason why the I.O had not recorded the statement of these essential witnesses. This raises the presumption that at the time of alleged occurrence, PW-4, PW-7 and PW-9 had nothing contribute or did not know the names of any suspect. They were waiting for the complainant and PW-8 Baro Khan to inform them of whom they were nominating. Such behaviour on the part of alleged eye-witnesses raises serious doubt about their credibility and brings into question the honesty and professionalism of the I.O.

22. As stated above, the I.O recorded the statement of PW-8 Baro Khan on 22.01.2022, 14 days after the alleged incident. Even if it is admitted that he became conscious on 10.01.2022, his statement is still delayed by 12 days, for which the I.O has not given any reason as to why it was recorded with such a delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as this Court has time and again ruled that recording the statement of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C at belated stage cause serious doubts on the version of the prosecution. Reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Khan v. Moula Bakhsh and anther, 1998 SCMR 570, wherein it has been held that: "It is settled law that the credibility of witness is looked with serious suspicion, if his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C is recorded with delay without affording any plausible explanation". In the above regard, reliance is also placed on the case of Bashir Muhammad Khan v. The State, 2022 SCMR 986, wherein it was held as under: "6 ..Delayed recording of statement of PW under section 161, Cr.P.C. reduces its value to nil unless and until it is explained rendering justiciable reasonings" . In the instant case, no plausible explanation was rendered by the prosecution rather deliberately delayed the statement in order to fix the responsibility.

23. The prosecution asserts that the accused/appellants Shahzad and Khuda Bakhsh were arrested on the spot and a 303 Rifle and 9mm pistols were seized from their possession. The prosecution also claims to have retrieved an LSMG along with 85 cartridges from the house of Ghulam Mustafa. However, it is essential to note that none of these items have been presented to the Court in the current case, nor have they been submitted to the Forensic Science Laboratories ('FSL') to match the empty casings found at the scene. Instead, the prosecution has only provided photocopies of the recovery memos. related to a connected case. The absence of recovery weapons and a positive FSL report significantly challenges the credibility of the prosecution's case.

24. Moreover, the observation of the case file indicates that the prosecution submitted empty casings allegedly collected on 08.01.2022. These casings were allegedly sealed in a parcel along with a seal memorandum, but the FIR number entry was delayed till lodgment of FIR, which was later on lodged on 10.01.2022. Upon reviewing the case documents, it is clear that the seal memorandum, claimed to be sealed on 08.01.2021, still displays the FIR number, suggesting that the documentation and empties have been organized after the registration of FIR rather than derived directly from the scene. This brings to light critical questions about the integrity of the evidence presented.

25. The testimony from the prosecution is quite compelling, as they recounted the intense and chaotic moment when they found themselves surrounded by assailants firing from every direction. Interestingly, they maintain that Muhammad Ishaq (PW-4) and the withdrawn witnesses, Irfan and Muhammad Ashraf, somehow miraculously avoided injury during this alarming event. Moreover, this raises important questions, particularly when we consider that the prosecution has found a staggering 57 empty cartridge cases from Kalashnikov, along with 130 from submachine guns, 10 from 09mm pistols and other from SMG and 303 Rifle. Given the sheer volume of gunfire, it seems unlikely that anyone could escape without harm.

26. Moreover, it appears quite difficult for the prosecution witnesses to accurately identify the specific actions of each assailants amidst such chaos. Their accounts further seems to have contradicted the findings of the MLCs issued by PW-3, which reveal that the deceased and injured have received injuries mostly on their front side. This discrepancy suggests that the events may not have unfolded as described by the prosecution.

27. Additionally, the site map supports this by indicating that the victims were lying on different sides of the vehicle on the road. These insights invite a situation that further creates doubt in the prosecution story.

28. The complainant and other eye-witnesses identified the accused while also noting the presence of two unknown individuals accompanying them. They conveyed confidence in their ability to recognize these individuals if presented with the opportunity. In this context, PW-4 Muhammad Ishaq submitted an affidavit dated January 27, 2022, in which he identified one of the two unknown individuals involved in the incident. As a result of this affidavit, the I.O arrested the accused/appellant, Muhammad Sharif, therefore, the affidavit filed by PW-4 Muhammad Ishaq against the appellant Muhammad Sharif has no worthy of reliance and seems to has been filed after though/deliberation without mentioning the description at the time of recording statement under section 161 Cr.P.C.

29. It is important to emphasize that he did not conduct an identification parade of accused Muhammad Sharif, nor was he explicitly linked to the firing that resulted in injuries or fatalities. While the eye-witnesses confirmed his involvement, they failed to provide specific descriptions of the unknown individuals, including their physique, height, or facial characteristics. This absence of detailed information challenges law enforcement and the judicial system in accurately prosecuting the appropriate individuals associated with this case. Highlighting the necessity for thorough descriptions could enhance the identification process in future investigations, ultimately contributing to the pursuit of justice.

30. A statement concerning an unknown person, lacking a complete description and clarity about their specific role in the incident, should not be readily accepted by the police when lodging the FIR. The police should be on guard, protecting innocent people from frivolous prosecution and the agony of long trials. Furthermore, the court should remain vigilant regarding such statements.

31. We have observed with great concern that, in many cases, the complainant nominates unknown individuals when filing an FIR. However, we have noted that no descriptions regarding their physical attributes, characteristics, or other relevant details about these unknown individuals are provided in the statements. This appears to be a deliberate choice to involve someone of the complainant's choice, choosing later; particularly an individual they believe is aiding the accused or someone with whom they have a personal grudge.

32. Though the prosecution has produced FSL report (Ex.P/16-C) with regard to 9mm pistol and crime empties. Record reveals that the same have been received by the FSL on 25.05.2022 with a delay of more than four months. However, still the crime weapon has not been produced by the prosecution, therefore, FSL report is of no avail to the prosecution. No explanation has been given by the prosecution with regard to delayed FSL report as well as safe custody of the crime weapon which has caused serious doubt in the case of prosecution.

33. Mere heinousness of the offence, if not proved to the hilt, is not a ground to punish an accused. It is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating uncertainty and if there is only one doubt, the benefit of the same must go to the accused. The conviction must be based on unimpeachable, trustworthy and reliable evidence. Any doubt arising in prosecution case is to be resolved in favour of the accused. The peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case are sufficient to cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution's case, which entitles the appellants to the benefit of doubt. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Khial Muhammad v. The State, 2024 SCMR 1490.

34. For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt.

35. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 05.08.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sibi in Sessions case No.06/2022 (FIR No.06/2022 registered with Police Station City Sibi) is set aside and by extending the benefit of doubt, the appellants are acquitted of the charges. The appellants being in custody are ordered to be released forthwith, if not, required in any other case. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition No.(S)16/2024 filed by the petitioner (Baro Khan/Injured) is dismissed. JK/124/Bal. Appeal allowe