2005 PLP 86 (YLR)

3. Liaqat and Musheer-appellants were sent up to face trial in the above note F.I.R. along with Haq Nawaz, Jhullan, Afzal, Laloo, Fazal Din, Karam Hussain, Ahmad, Ajab, Akbar, Dost Ali, Hussain, Khano, Imam Din, Elahi, Shameer, Machin and Daim.

4. Shameer, Machin and Daim accused absconded during the trial and proceedings were initiated against them.

5. Vide afore-referred judgment the learned trial Court convicted Liaqat, Musheer and Hussain accused as follows:-- (i) Liaqat and Musheer accused were convicted for offence under section 148, P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years each. (ii) Liaqat and Musheer were also convicted for offences under sections 302/149, P. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. (iii) Hussain accused was convicted for offences under sections 302/149, P.P.C. and sentenced to the period already spent by him in jail. All the sentences were to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the convicts. Hussain accused, who was convicted along with the appellants, did not file any appeal against his conviction.

6. Allah Wasaya (P.W.7) reported the incident to Manzoor Ahmad, S.-I. (P.W.13), Police Station. Abadpur, on 24-4-1995, when the latter was present appellants and Hussain accused were found to be involved in the case during investigation; and (ii) that as per prosecution case the appellants appeared before P.W.13 with weapons i.e. .12 bore guns.

15. As far as the first reason is concerned, the opinion of the Investigating Officer was irrelevant and was not admissible under any provision of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Reliance is placed on the cases of Darghahi and others v. The State PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lahore 300 and Nasir Abbas v. .The State 1995 SCMR 1333. I would like to reproduce the observation made by this Court in the case of Darghahi and others (supra) hereunder:-- "Judicial Officers could not be permitted to allow their judicial conscience to be moulded by the opinion of the Investigating Officers. The guilt or innocence of an accused must be judged according to accepted rules of law. It will be extremely hazardous to place reliance upon the opinion of police officers. And to make it a cornerstone of one's decision is to allow oneself to be a tool in the hands of the police. This is likely to shake the very confidence of the people in the judiciary. The judiciary was under a solemn pledge to keep the fountain of justice pure and clear. "

16. As far as the recovery of weapons is concerned, the learned trial Court has failed to notice that the alleged recovered guns were never sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Not only this, there is no opinion on record as to whether the recovered guns were in working condition or not. In these circumstances, hardly any reliance could be placed on the evidence of recovery. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court also suffers from discrimination, as co-accused Hussain, who was convicted for the same offence, was sentenced to the period already served out by him in jail during trial, while the appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

17. To conclude, I allow both the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment dated 12-4-2001 and acquit the appellants of the charges. They would be released from jail forthwith, if their further detention is, not required in any other criminal case. H.B.T./M-716/L Appeals allowed.