1984 P Cr (PLP)

4. [Medical Evidence].

5. Ghulam Nabi P.W.6 who was injured during the occurrence was medically examined by Dr. Muhammad Afzal Malik, P.W.15 who found as many as six injuries on his person. All the injuries were simple in nature caused by blunt weapon.

6. On 4-4-1980 Muhammad Bashir Ahmad S.I. , S. H .O. arrested Bahadur, Dulli, and Fateh Muhammad, Khan Muhammad P.W. (not produced) produced stick P.4 before the S.I. allegedly recovered from Bahadur co-accused which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.G. It is remarkable that no recovery was effected from the appellant and the other co-accused.

7. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses out of whom Ghulam Nabi P.W.6, Mst. Noor Sain, P.W.7, Faiz Muhammad P.W.8, Muhammad Rafiq P.W.10 and Muhammad Ramzan P.W.11 have given ocular account of the occurrence. Ghulam Nabi P.W.6 and Mst. Noor Sain P.W.7 supported the story of the prosecution as given in the F.I.R. They have not involved Khalidi, appellant, in the case. According to their statements the co-accused namely, Jagar,. Dulli, Fateh Muhammad, Bahadur, Paliya and Shahru had participated in the occurrence and given injuries to the deceased. Faiz Muhammad, Muhammad Rafique and Muhammad Ramzan, P.Ws. have stated that Khalid alias Khalidi, appellant, had given a Danda blow on the head of Ghulam Rasool, deceased. Ali Muhammad P.W.4, who was produced to prove the recovery of Danda P.4, allegedly recovered from Bahadur co-accused, has not supported the recovery. The evidence of the rest of the witnesses is more or less of formal nature.

8. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. has denied the incriminating circumstances and has taken the plea of false implication on account of party faction. The other accused have also denied the incriminating circumstances. The appellant as well as the other co-accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed o prove its case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the name of the appellant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. and the witnesses who have implicated him in the occurrence are also not mentioned in the F. I. R. As against this the learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has supported the-judgment of the learned trial Court.

10. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that the prosecution has relied on the ocular testimony of five witnesses namely, Ghulam Nabi, P.W.6, Mst. Noor Sain P.W. 7, Faiz Muhammad P.W.8, Muhammad Rafique P.W.10 and Muhammad Ramzan P.W.11 and no other evidence, oral or circumstantial has been led to corroborate the ocular testimony or connect the appellant and the co-accused with the commission of crime. I find that Ghulam Nabi, P.W.6 who is real brother of the deceased has not implicated Khalid alias Khalidi appellant. According to his statement Khalidi was not present on the spot at the time of occurrence. Mst. Noor Sain has also not involved the appellant. Her statement is almost the same as made by Ghulam Nabi P..W 6 As for Faiz Muhammad P.W. 8 Muhammad Rafique P.W. 10 and Muhammad Rarnzan P.W.

11. I find that although they have stated that the deceased was given a Dang blow on has head by Khalidi appellant yet their names do not figure in the F.I.R which was not recorded by an eye witnesses were recorded by police after three days of the occurrence as stated by Muhammad Bashir Ahmad P,W, 12 the Investigating Officer: I am of the opinion that for the two reasons given above, it would be in accordance. with the safe administration of justice in criminal cases to exclude the evidence of these witnesses from consideration. After having excluded and not relied upon the statements of Faiz Muhammad P.W.8 Muhammad Rafique P.W 10'- and -:Muhammad Ramzan P.W 11 I do not find any other evidence to connect the appellant with the murder of Ghulam Rasool.

11. For what has been stated above the prosecution has failed prove any offence against the appellant Khalidi. He is accordingly acquitted of the charge and, shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

12. As for Criminal Revisions for enhancement and against acquittal, I find that the evidence made by Ghulam Nabi, P. W.6 and . Mst. Noor Sain P.W.7 stand contradicted: by, statements of Faiz Muhammad P.W.8.Mihammad RafiqueiP.W.1 and Muhammad Ramzan P.W. 11 the eyes-witnesses and as such. I am not inclined to issue- notices in the revision petitions.

13. Resultantly Criminal Appeal .filed by Khalid alias Khalidi accepted and the connected Criminal Revisions are rejected. M.Y.H. Appeal allowed.