2016 PLP 1 (YLRN)

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.

Muhammad Afzal alias Nanha, Younas alias Youna and Asif alias Aasu appellants along with Muhammad Ashiq, Wali Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan (acquitted accused) were tried in private complaint under Sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C., Police Station Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, who, vide judgment dated 26.02.2007, convicted and sentenced Muhammad Afzal alias Nanha, Younas alias Youna and Asif alias Aasu appellants as under:-- 4 Under section 302(b), P.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life each with direction to pay a sum of Rs.100,000/- each to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. and in default thereof, to further undergo S.I. for six months. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was also extended to them.

2. Originally, the instant criminal appeal was filed by Muhammad Afzal alias Nanha, Younas alias Youna and Asif alias Aasu appellants against their conviction and sentences, but subsequently Younas alias Youna, appellant at Sr. No.2, filed criminal miscellaneous petition for his acquittal, the same was accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 10.07.2009 and Younas alias Youna appellant was acquitted of the charge on the basis of compromise arrived at between him and legal heirs of the deceased. Now this Court has to decide the appeal only to the extent of Muhammad Afzal alias Nanha and Asif alias Aasu appellants. On the other hand, the complainant has filed Criminal Revision No.330 of 2007 for enhancement of the sentences awarded to the respondents. Since both these matters have arisen out of one and the same judgment dated 26.02.2007; therefore, I propose to decide the same together through this single judgment.

3. Initially Khan Muhammad moved written application regarding the murder of his brother Sarfraz before the Station House Officer, Police Station Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura and FIR No.21/2005 dated 12.01.2015 was chalked out under Sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. Being dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the police, Khan Muhammad complainant filed private complaint against the accused. Succinctly the facts of the prosecution's case set forth in the private complaint are that on 12.01.2005 at about 02:30 p.m. he along with Muhammad Maalik and Sarfraz, his brothers, Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Hussain were sitting in his house and were talking on domestic affairs, when Nanha Gujjar and Younas alias Youna came to his house, called out Sarfraz and took him to Adda Kharianwala. The complainant came behind them and saw that Nanha, Younas alias Youna, Ashiq, Wali Muhammad, Asif alias Aasu and Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani were boarded in a "tonga" and on seeing him, his brother Sarfraz said that they were going to Lungowal in connection with some work and would come back in a short while. The complainant came back to his house and told the whole episode and after some time, he along with Muhammad Maalik, Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Hussain boarded on another "tonga" and went behind Sarfraz and others. At about 04:45 p.m. when they reached Lungowal, on the katcha road leading towards Kot Jeewan Singh, they saw that Ramzan alias Jani Kochwan and Wali were sitting in "tonga" while Asif alias Aasu armed with "chhuri", Nanha armed with "chhuri", Younas alias Youna armed with "chhuri" and Ashiq were present on the road and were causing repeated "chhuri" blows to Sarfraz. Nanha, Younas and Asif inflected "chhuri" blows on chest, neck and flank of Sarfraz as a result of which he fell down and then they dragged and threw him in wheat crop. On hearing the hue and cry of PWs, the accused ran away. All six accused after due consultation drank liquor to Sarfraz and then murdered him by giving "chhuri" blows. The motive behind the occurrence was the quarrel, which took place two months prior to the occurrence, regarding which compromise had been effected, but the accused kept grudge in their mind and murdered Sarfraz, brother of the complainant.

4. The investigation of the case was conducted by Muhammad Sharif, SI/IO who, after completion of investigation, prepared report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and submitted the same before the Court. Feeling dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the investigating officer, Khan Muhammad complainant filed private complaint under Sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. and after usual formalities, the accused were summoned to face the trial. At the commencement of trial, the learned trial court after supplying copies of the documents required under section 265-C, Cr.P.C. to the appellants and their co-accused, framed charge against them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To substantiate its version at the trial, the prosecution produced as many as eight witnesses before the learned trial court and the learned trial court also recorded statements two police officers as court witnesses. Ocular account was furnished by Khan Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and Muhammad Maalik eye-witness (PW-2). Medical evidence was furnished by Dr.Sohail Khyzar (PW-3), who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Muhammad Eisa (PW-4) prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence, Muhammad Afzal constable (PW-6) testified regarding recovery of knife (P3) from Asif alias Aasu appellant, Safdar Ali, head constable (PW-7) is the scribe of FIR (Ex.PA/1), while the remaining prosecution witnesses are almost formal in nature. The learned trial Court has recorded the statements of Muhammad Sharif S.I./I.O. and Irslan Khan Inspector as CW-1 and CW-2 respectively.. After placing on record the reports of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PL and Ex.PM) and the reports of Serologist (Ex.PL/1 and Ex.PM/1), the prosecution closed its evidence.

5. In their statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. the accused denied and controverted all the allegations leveled against them by the prosecution and professed their innocence. However, neither the appellants nor the acquitted accused had opted to make statements on oath under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. and they also did not produce any witness in their defence.

6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court after finding the prosecution's case against Muhammad Afzal alias Nanha, Younas alias Youna and Asif alias Aasu appellants to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned and detailed in paragraph No.1 of this judgment, whereas co-accused Muhammad Ashiq, Wali Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan were acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. Hence, this appeal and connected criminal revision before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of this appeal, contends that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, the appellants deserve clean acquittal. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that sufficient evidence has been placed on record, through which the prosecution has successfully brought the guilt of the appellants to the hilt. While arguing on criminal revision, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that no mitigating circumstance was available in the prosecution case, but the learned trial Court has committed serious illegality and irregularity while awarding lesser sentence of imprisonment for life to the respondents/ appellants. He further submits that it is a fit case for awarding death sentence to the appellants, hence, while dismissing their criminal appeal, the sentence of imprisonment for life be altered with death sentence and the amount of compensation be also enhanced.

8. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants, learned Deputy Prosecutor General as well as learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

9. The incident in the present case according to the prosecution was alleged to have taken place at 04.45 p.m. on 12.01.2015 within the area of Lungowal 7 miles towards east from Police Station Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura and the matter was reported by Khan Muhammad complainant (PW-1) through written application (Ex.PA) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex.PA/1) was chalked out by Safdar Ali, head constable/duty officer (PW-7) on the same night at 07:20 p.m. According to the statement of Muhammad Sharif, Sub-Inspector (CW-1), on receipt of information about the occurrence, he along with other police officials reached at the place of occurrence where Khan Muhammad complainant (PW-1) submitted application (Ex.PA) for registration of FIR, which he sent to Police Station through Muhammad Afzal constable (PW-6). He inspected the place of occurrence, where the dead body of the deceased was lying and then he examined the said dead body, prepared inquest report (Ex.PF) as well as injury statement (Ex.PG) and sent the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary for postmortem examination. However, it is strange that according to Dr.Sohail Khyzar (PW-4), he had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Sarfraz deceased on 13.01.2005 at 10.00 a.m. and as per his opinion the time between the death and postmortem examination was 12 to 24 hours and he has categorically stated before the trial Court that the dead body of the deceased was brought in the hospital for postmortem examination on 13.01.2005 at 10.00 a.m. So it was a case of delayed postmortem, which casts serious doubt as if the FIR was got recorded with such promptitude, then what was the circumstance for not shifting the dead body of the deceased to the hospital with considerable delay of seventeen hours after the occurrence. An inference, therefore, can be drawn that the intervening period had been consumed in fabricating the prosecution story after due deliberation and preliminary investigation; otherwise there was no justification for conducting post-mortem with such delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2012 SCMR 419) has visualized the tendency on the part of the police in showing that the FIR was got recorded with promptitude, but the Courts are bound to see it with distinct source. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- "Incident in the present case had taken place, according to the prosecution on 3-7-2003 at evening time and case of the prosecution is that FIR was recorded at 9-00 p.m. without inordinate delay and on the other hand postmortem was conducted by P. W.3 Dr. Asghar Ali Hunjra on the next day i.e. 4-7-2003 at 10-00 a.m. If FIR was recorded with such a promptitude then why the postmortem was conducted with such a delay. Even otherwise, according to P. W.3 Dr. Asghar Ali Hunjra, the time between death and postmortem was 15 to 16 hours. So, the F.I.R. was recorded with a delay and cannot be used against the appellant as a corroborative piece of evidence." In the present case, postmortem had been conducted with the delay of more than seventeen hours without any justification or explanation and I am satisfied that the FIR was got recorded after preliminary investigation and it cannot be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. As such the prosecution story has to be seen with great care and caution.

10. Coming to the ocular evidence, Khan Muhammad complainant, Muhammad Maalik, Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Hussain have been mentioned in FIR (Ex.PA/1) as well as private complaint (Ex.PB) as the eye-witnesses of this occurrence. The statements of Khan Muhammad complainant and Muhammad Maalik were recorded by the trial Court as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively, while Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Hussain were given up by the complainant being unnecessary. I have gone through the statements of Khan Muhammad complainant and Muhammad Maalik with care and caution and have observed that Khan Muhammad complainant (PW-1) was residing in Samanabad, Lahore, whereas Muhammad Maalik (PW-2) used to reside at Kharianwala, District Sheikhupura during the days of occurrence, which admittedly took place within the area of Lungowal, so their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence was not natural, because, the FIR (Ex.PA/1), private complaint (Ex.PB) as well as the statements of Khan Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and, Muhammad Maalik (PW-2) clearly reflect that both these witnesses were chance witnesses and they could not advance any plausible justification for their presence at the place of occurrence. In case of "Nadeem @ Nanha @ Billa Sher vs. The State" (2010 SCMR 949), the Apex Court, while discussing the evidentiary value of the statements chance witnesses, has observed as below:-- "The complainant PW4 and Muhammad Afzaal PW5 are chance witnesses as they should not normally be present at the place of occurrence and it is difficult to rely upon their statements being chance and highly interested witnesses." Even otherwise, the mode and manner of occurrence advanced by Khan Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and Muhammad Maalik (PW-2) itself negates their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence as according to them, they along with Haq Nawaz and Muhammad Hussain had reached at the spot when the appellants and their co-accused were inflicting "chhuri" blows to their real brother Sarfraz deceased, but they did not try to rescue their real brother from the clutches of assailants, who were merely armed with "chhuris". Thus, the unnatural conduct shown by Khan Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and Muhammad Maalik (PW-2) at the time of occurrence is sufficient to dislodge their presence at the place of occurrence. It is also worth mentioning here that Muhammad Maalik (PW-2), who, according to the prosecution version, was present at the spot, when Muhammad Sharif S.I./I.O. (CW-1) conducted spot inspection, but his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded by the investigating officer on 04.02.2005 i.e. on 24th day after the occurrence. Another fact which creates doubt in my mind about the presence of Khan Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and Muhammad Maalik (PW-2) at the spot at the time of occurrence is the admission of Muhammad Sharif S.I./I.O. (CW-1) that when he visited the place of occurrence, he found that the eyes of the deceased were open, which shows that Muhammad Sharif, S.I./I.O. (CW-1) was the first person who attended the dead body of the deceased, lying in wheat crop. If this was not enough, Muhammad Ilyas constable (PW-5), who is prosecution's own witnesses has stated in his cross-examination as follows:-- "At 06:00 p.m. we received information of this occurrence at Police Station and set for the place of occurrence. We reached there at about 7:00 p.m. the dead body was taken to the police station from the spot and reached the police station at about 9:00 p.m. The papers were prepared in the police station after summoning the relatives of the deceased. Similarly, Muhammad Sharif S.I./I.O. (CW-1) also remained unable to disclose the name of the person who informed the police about the occurrence and the name of actual informer has not been brought on record by the prosecution in its whole case. The above portion of the statement of PW-5 has made it crystal clear that the occurrence in the present case was unseen, informed to the police by some unknown person, in consequence of which, the police brought the dead body of Sarfraz deceased to police station, called his relatives and then prepared relevant papers while sitting in the police station. The above findings of facts are further strengthened by the fact that according to the prosecution version, the deceased was first given chhuri blows on the road and when he fell on earth, he was dragged and thrown in wheat crop, but during spot inspection, Muhammad Sharif S.I./I.O. (CW-1) did not collect blood stained earth from the road i.e. place of occurrence and he only collected blood strained earth from the field of wheat crop where dead body of the deceased was lying. Similarly, the doctor (PW-3) also did not observe any symptom of dragging on the body of Sarfraz deceased during the course of postmortem examination. These facts undoubtedly dismantle the presence of Khan Muhammad complainant (PW-1) and Muhammad Maalik (PW-2) from the place of occurrence. Even otherwise, as there was no chance of hiding dead body of the deceased in wheat crop, which was merely of six inches height, so there was no need for the appellants to drag the deceased to wheat crop. Thus being so, I am not inclined to rely on their statements to maintain conviction and sentences of the appellants.

11. Adverting to medical evidence, it is by now well settled law that medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the seat of injuries, nature of the injuries, kind of weapon used in the occurrence, but it would not connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Reference in this respect may be made to the case of "Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others" (PLD 2009 SC 53). Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of "Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v. The State" (2009 SCMR 1410) and "Altaf Hussain v. Fakhar Hussain and another" (2008 SCMR 1103). This Court has already held in the preceding paragraphs that it was a case of delayed postmortem and the FIR was also not lodged at the time mentioned therein, rather it was lodged after preliminary inquiry and as such possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant had consulted with some expert before specifying the locale and nature of injuries and the weapon used by the assailant. Moreover, Dr. Sohail Khyzar (PW-3) has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries observed by him on the dead body of Sarfraz deceased could be the result of one and the same weapon. Even otherwise, in the absence of trustworthy and confidence inspiring ocular account, medical evidence does not bear any significance.

12. Nothing was recovered from Muhammad Afzal alias Nanha appellant and as far as the recovery of knife (P3) from Asif alias Aasu appellant is concerned, it may be observed that the occurrence in this case took place on 12.01.2005 whereas the knife (P3) was recovered from Asif alias Aasu appellant on 06.02.2005. Knife (P3) was sent to the office of the Chemical Examiner on 08.02.2005 and as such there is remote possibility of blood being present on the knife, therefore, I am of the view that it is not safe to rely on this piece of prosecution evidence. Even otherwise, it does not appeal to the mind of a prudent person that Asif alias Aasu appellant would keep the knife (P3) stained with blood for such a long period as he had ample opportunity during the above mentioned period to wash away the blood from it. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of Basharat and another v. The State (1995 SCMR 1735), while disbelieving the evidence of blood stained chhuri allegedly recovered from the accused after ten days from the occurrence, observed as under:-- "

11. The occurrence took place on 20.4.1988. Basharat appellant was arrested on 28.4.1988. The blood-stained Chhuri was allegedly recovered from his house on 30.4.1988. It is not believable that he would have kept blood stained Chhuri intact in his house for ten days when he had sufficient time and opportunity to wash away and clean the blood on it..." So far as possibility of presence of the blood on the knife after the lapse of almost one month is concerned, I may refer a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Akram and others (2009 SCMR 120), wherein at page 123, it was observed as under:- It is borne out from the record that the alleged recovery of blood-stained Chhuri has been effected after about one month of the occurrence from an open plot which was not in exclusive possession of the respondent and was accessible to all. It was also not likely that the blood would not disintegrate meanwhile. So the reasons advanced by the learned Judge in Chambers are not arbitrary or fanciful for not believing the recovery..." Taking guidance from the above dictums, it is not safe to rely on the positive reports of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PL) and Serologist (Ex.PL/ 1).

13. In FIR (Ex.PA/1) as well as in private complaint (Ex.PB), Khan Muhammad complainant (PW-1) has set a specific motive. According to him, motive behind the occurrence was the quarrel, took place between the deceased and the accused persons including the appellants two months prior to the instant occurrence, regarding which compromise was effected, but the accused kept grudge in their minds. In this respect, I have observed that Haq Nawaz has been cited by the complainant as the witness of motive, but said Haq Nawaz was not produced before the learned trial Court to support motive part of the prosecution's case and in this way, the prosecution has itself held the best evidence available to it to prove motive.

14. Apart from above, co-accused of the appellants namely Muhammad Ashiq, Wali Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan, whose role is identical to that of the appellants especially Muhammad Ashiq accused, have already been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Although the complainant challenged their acquittal before this Court, but he has later on withdrawn the same vide order dated 19.10.2007 and the judgment of learned trial Court to the extent of their acquittal has attained finality. In the circumstances when the evidence to the extent of acquitted co-accused has already been disbelieved by the learned trial Court, It cannot be believed against the appellants until and unless the same is supported by any independent corroborative piece of evidence which is very much lacking in this case as I have not been able to find out any such evidence on the record. Reliance can be placed on the case reported as Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamraz Khan and others (PLD 1985 SC 11), wherein, at page 23, the learned Apex Court has been pleased to hold as under:

"It is often said that the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in Pakistan. The same principle has been described in some cases, slightly differently; namely, that the testimony of an eye-witness should not be treated as indivisible although there is no consensus with regard to the later view. A contrary view has also been held. Expressed in a more direct manner a similar rule in the administration of criminal justice which is hall-mark of Islamic Jurisprudence, that when a witness has been found false with regard to the implication of one accused about whose participation he had deposed on oath the credibility of such witness regarding involvement of the other accused in the same occurrence would be irretrievably shaken. However, as a matter of convenience a rule has been developed in Pakistan since the famous case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Crown (1) propounded by late Chief Justice Muhammad Munir that where it is found that a witness has falsely implicated one accused person, ordinarily he would not be relied upon with regard to the other accused in the same occurrence. But if the testimony of such a witness is corroborated by, very strong and independent circumstances regarding other the reliance might then be placed on the witness for convicting the other accused............." The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, in case of Iftikhar Hussain v. The State 2004 SCMR 1185 has been pleased to hold as under:-- .It is true that principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is no more applicable as on following this principle, the evidence of a witness is to be accepted or discarded as a whole for the purpose of convicting or acquitting an accused person, therefore, keeping in view prevailing circumstances, the Courts for safe administration of justice follow the principle of appraisal of evidence i.e. sifting of grain out of chaff i.e. if an ocular testimony of a witness is to be disbelieved against a particular set of accused and is to be believed against another set of the accused facing the same trial, then the Court must search for independent corroboration on material particulars as has been held in number of cases decided by the Superior Courts. Reference may be made readily to the case of Sarfraz alias Sappi and 2 others v. The State (2000 SCMR 1758)......". In case of Akhtar Ali and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 6 at page 12 of the judgment, the following principles have been highlighted by the learned Apex Court:-- ...... It is a settled law that eye-witnesses found to have falsely implicated five out of eight accused then conviction of remaining accused on the basis of same evidence cannot be relied upon without independent corroboration. See Ghulam Muhammad's case PLD 1975 SC 588 Sheral alias Sher Muhammad's case (1999 SCMR 697) and Ata Muhammad's case (1995 SCMR 599). It is also a settled law that credibility of the ocular evidence is not divisible. See Faiz Bakhsh's case (PLD 1959 PC 24), Nadia's case (42 Cr.L.J. 53), Muhammad's case (PLD 1954 FC 84), Sher Bahadar's case (1972 SCMR 651) and Muhammad Afsar's case (PLD 1954 FC 171). It is also a settled maxim when a witness improves his version to strengthen the prosecution case, his improved statement subsequently made cannot be relied upon as the witness had improved his statement dishonestly, therefore, his credibility becomes doubtful on the well known principle of criminal jurisdiction that improvements once found deliberate and dishonest cast serious doubt on the veracity of such witnesses. See Hadi Bakhsh's case (PLD 1963 Kar. 805) ". To fortify the above view, guidance has also been sought from the case of Ghulam Mustafa and another v. State 2009 SCMR 916 wherein, at page 924, the learned Apex Court of the country, has been pleased to hold as under:-- In our jurisdiction it is by now well established that the legal maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a universal principle to be applied in all criminal cases. However, according to settled case law there are exceptions and if evidence on the record warrants a doubt in the credibility of such witnesses than indeed their testimony regarding another set of co-accused is to be considered with caution and cannot be accepted without strict corroboration from other independent and credible sources. In this connection reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. State (1969 SCMR 132), Shafoo v. State (1968 SCMR 719) and Allah Ditta v. State PLD 2002 SC 52 After having looked into the prosecution case from all angles, I have come to an irresistible conclusion that the case to the extent of appellants is of doubtful nature and the conviction and sentence of the appellants on the basis of such type of shaky and unreliable evidence cannot be maintained. It is well settled by now that in case of doubt, its benefit must go to the accused not as a matter of grace but of right. The same proposition came up for consideration in the case reported as Muhammad Akram v. The State (2009 SCMR 230), wherein, at page 236, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, held as under:-- "

13. The nutshell of the whole discussion is that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matter of right and not of grace. It was observed by this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right".

15. I may observe here that it is always the prosecution, who has to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and if it fails to do so, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as of right. Law is also settled on the point that if there is an element of doubt as to the guilt of accused, the benefit of that doubt must be extended to him. The rule of benefit of doubt, which is described as the golden rule, is essentially a rule of prudence which cannot be ignored while dispensing justice in accordance with law. So, after considering all the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against Muhammad Afzal alias Nanha and Asif alias Aasu appellants beyond any shadow of doubt, therefore, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set-aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charge of committing murder of Sarfraz deceased. Asif alias Aasu appellant is behind the bars, he shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Muhammad Afzal alias Nanha appellant is on bail, he is set at liberty and his, sureties stand discharged from the liability of surety bonds.

16. So far as Criminal Revision No.330 of 2007 filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of sentences awarded to the respondents is concerned, since they have been acquitted after setting aside the conviction and sentences recorded by the learned trial court against them, this Revision Petition has become infructuous, which is accordingly dismissed. MH/M-205/L Order accordingly.