2007 PLP 805 (YLR)

ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.

Applicant Soonharo has challenged order dated 11-5-2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Larkana refusing to acquit him without examining the eye-witnesses fourth time. Earlier, they were examined thrice in the years 2002, 2003 .and 2005 and every time they deposed that faces of all the assailants were muffled due to which they could not identify any of them. The allegation against the applicant is that on 4-11-1996 at about 6-30 a.m. at the land of Jumo Khan Mari, situated in Deh Bugti Balochan, Taluka Larkana, he along with six other persons, namely, Nazar Muhammad

2. Qalandar Bux

3. Piaro

4. Muhammad Siddique

5. Palio and

6. Attaullah, all armed with fire-arms, killed complainant Arbab's uncle Liaquat Ali Mari by making fires upon him. Besides the complainant, the incident was witnessed by his uncle Kalab Ali and cousins Dodo and Sarang. Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique were tried and acquitted on 28-10-2002 by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, 'Larkana as all the eye-witnesses stated before the trial Court that faces of all the seven assailants were muffled due to which they could not identify any of them. The case against accused Palio abated as he died in a road accident on 5-4-2002. The remaining accused, namely, Qalandar Bux, Piaro, Soonharo and Attaullah were kept on dormant file as they were absconding. Qalandar Bux was subsequently arrested, tried and acquitted on 6-6-2003 as all the eye-witnesses again examined by the trial Court stated that the faces of all the assailants were muffled and they could not identify any of them. Thereafter Piaro was arrested and tried. All the eye-witnesses were examined third time and they again stated that faces of all the assailants were muffled and they could not identify any of them. He was acquitted on 2-7-2005. On 27-2-2006 accused Soonharo (present applicant) voluntarily surrendered before the trial Court. He was admitted to bail and charge was framed against him on 25-4-2006. His application for acquitting him on the ground that no useful purpose would be served to examine the witnesses fourth time was rejected by the trial Court only on the ground that he had earlier absconded. In this regard, it may be observed that no useful purpose will be served by the absurd exercise of examining the witnesses again and again. It will be simply a cause of botheration to everybody concerned in the case, more to the witnesses. They should not have been, troubled again and again once they stated that they had not identified any of the assailants. It is not expected of a witness to change his stand as it will not make much difference for an accused and will simply expose him to the charge of perjury. An accused cannot be conflicted on the basis of evidence of a witness who exonerated him in his earlier statement before the trial Court: The learned State Counsel also conceded that no useful purpose will be served to examine the witnesses fourth time. In view of such facts, circumstances and reasons now recorded, the application was allowed and the applicant was acquitted by a short order passed on 18-12-2006. H.B.T./S-79/K Application allowed.