2002 PLP 703 (YLR)

4. In the subsequent investigation conducted, all the accused were found guilty and were challaned to Court. Charge was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Prosecution examined 10 witnesses at the trial to prove its case against the accused. Bahawal Sher complainant P.W.1 reaffirmed the narrative contained in the F.I.R. Abbas Ali P.W.2 furnished the eye witnesses account of the incident and supported the prosecution case. Lal Akbar P.W.3 identified the dead body of Muhammad Ali deceased at the time of post mortem examination.

6. Dr. Akram Ali Dogar P.W.4 had conducted post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Ali deceased and noted three fire‑arms injuries on the dead body. Medical Officer tendered in evidence copy of post‑mortem examination report as Exh.P.D.

7. Aurangzeb Draftsman P.W.6 prepared site plan Exh.P.G and Exh.P.G‑1.

8. Fateh Muhammad S.I. P.W.9 recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.A on the oral statement of complainant. He testified about the various steps taken by him during the investigation.

9. The accused in their examination recorded under section' 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case and pleaded their false implication in the case due to enmity.

10. Trial Court after conclusion of trial believed the prosecution case to the extent of Muhammad Yar, accused and convicted him as noted above.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that deceased had some dispute with Nausher (since dead) and as a matter of fact he alone was involved in ‑the incident in which the deceased lost his life and the appellant was implicated in the case at the instance of his enemies. It was submitted that medical evidence also supported the defence version that only one person had fired at the deceased. It was submitted that none of the witnesses was present with the deceased when the occurrence had taken place and this was evident by the fact that deceased was removed to the hospital quite belatedly and case was also registered with considerable delay as the documents submitted to hospital authorities did not contain the number of F.I.R. which was indicative of the fact that till the injured was taken to hospital or his body was subjected to post‑mortem examination, the case was not registered at the police station.

12. Learned counsel for State on the other hand submitted that appellant was rightly convicted by the trial Court.

13. Motive .for the incident was stated to be that leg of Nausher accused (since dead) was fractured by the complainant and his father and to avenge that the aforesaid Nausher and appellant had committed murder of Muhammad Ali present appellant was not involved in the earlier incident and had no grievance against tire deceased. The appellant and Nausher had no special relations and in the absence of any strong motive the appellant could not have joined Nausher to take revenge of an injury which was caused to Nausher alone. The motive does not support the prosecution case against the appellant in any manner.

14. The "medical evidence indicates that deceased was fired at with a rifle and both the injuries appeared to have been caused with the same sort of weapon. Only lower part of leg of deceased was injured and none of his vital organs were damaged at the time of occurrence. If the complainant and witnesses were present with the deceased and deceased was removed to hospital promptly he possibly could have been saved from the clutches or death. The conduct of complainant and witnesses in that Muhammad Ali deceased was kept lying at the spot for a considerable period of time after, the incident indicate that the complainant and witnesses were not present at the spot when the shooting has taken place. After the incident Muhammad Ali was statingly carried to one hospital and then to another and then the matter was reported to police. This story was introduces to cover up the delay having occasioned in reporting the matter to police and also in taking Muhammad Ali to hospital. The witnesses were chance witnesses and had not given any plausible explanation for their presence at the place of occurrence.

15. The scrutiny of record with care, shows that Nausher and deceased came across each other by chance and in all probability Nausher fired at deceased who was injured. Nausher fled from the spot. Relatives of Muhammad Ali were informed about the incident who reached the spot and then this criminal case was registered after a considerable delay. The appellant was a young person and had no reason to have committed the offence. He was not shown to be having any interest common with Nausher the person who had motive to commit the offence. His involvement in the commission of offence is not above board. The benefit of doubt arising out of suspect prosecution case against him, therefore is extended to the convict and he is acquitted of the charges.

16. Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside. He shall be released from custody if not required in any other case. S.M.A./M‑1412/L Appeal allowed.