2020 P Cr. L J 503
[Balochistan]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ
JALAT KHAN alias JALO ---Appellant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 353 and Murder Reference No. 9 of 2016, decided on 28th August,
2019.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 302 ---Qanun -e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g) ---Qatl -i-amd---Appreciation of
evidence--- Benefit of doubt ---Withholding of material witness ---Related witness ---Un -
natural conduct of eye -witnesses--- Scope ---Prosecution c ase was that the accused made
firing upon the brother and cousin of complainant, resultantly, brother of complainant received bullet injuries, who died on the spot while his cousin survived---All the three eye-witnesses produced in support of charge were c losely related to the deceased ---Said
witnesses, who were cousins and brother of the deceased, instead of shifting the deceased to the hospital kept waiting for complainant, which appeared to be unnatural ---Said witnesses
did not accompany the dead body to the hospital ---If they were present at the spot at the time
of alleged occurrence, they must have taken the deceased either to the hospital or to Levies Station, which was not done ---Complainant was not eye -witness of the alleged occurrence
but the FIR wa s lodged by him ---If it was presumed that eye -witnesses were present at the
place of occurrence, then they would have lodged the report promptly, but they did not do so---Such conduct of eye -witnesses showed that they were not present at the place of occur rence
and failed to justify their presence at the place of occurrence---No resistance or hue and cry for help was made by the said witnesses, despite the fact that the alleged occurrence took place near the house of person ---Mode and manner of the occurrence, advanced by the
prosecution witnesses, was not appealable to the prudent mind---Accused/appellant has no motive to fire at the deceased ---Alleged eye- witnesses escaped unhurt and did not even
receive a scratch in the incident, despite being empty hande d and were totally at the mercy of
the appellant ---Accused/appellant selected to kill the brother of the complainant with whom
they had no direct motive ---Inference, in circumstances, could be that the incident did not
take place in the way and manner, as it was alleged ---Complainant did not mention the
names of the said witnesses in his report and did not state a single word in his report as well as in his statement that they were present at the time of alleged occurrence---According to the eye- witnesses t he accused/appellant made firing near the houses ---No impartial evidence
had come from the neighbourhood to corroborate the prosecution case, which, of course, could be available due to gunshots ---Non -production of two persons, one who informed the
complai nant about the incident and the other who took the deceased to the hospital were not
produced as witnesses which made the prosecution case doubtful under Art. 129(g) of
Qanun- e-Shahadat, 1984---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside
conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.
Pathan v. The State 2015 SCMR 315 rel.
(b) Criminal trial ---
----Witness --- Related witness --- Evidence of related witnesses ---Reliance--- Scope ---
Evidence of related witness could not be discarded on the ground of their being related to the
victim--- When testimony of the related witnesses got no corroboration from attending
circumstances of the case or the conduct shown by them at the time of occurrence or just thereafter which could n ot be expected from a prudent person, then the evidence furnished by
related witnesses could be discarded.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 302 ---Qatl -i-amd---Appreciation of evidence ---Eye -witnesses were related witnesses
and showed unnatural conduct ---Delay of about two and half hours in lodging of FIR ---
Effect ---No plausible explanation was given for delay which created doubt on the credibility
of the eye -witnesses.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 302---Qatl -i-amd---Appreciation of evidenc e---Benefit of doubt ---Delay in recording
the statement of witnesses under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Effect ---Record showed that the
occurrence took place on 22.1.2016 at 4.00 p.m. while witnesses claimed to have seen the occurrence but their statements were recor ded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. with delay of one day
and statement of third witness was recorded at night on the day of occurrence at his residence without any plausible explanation --- Such delay would reduce the value of their statements.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----S. 302--- Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt ---Medical and ocular
evidence--- Contradiction ---Effect ---Prosecution case was that accused made firing upon the
borther and cousin of complainant, resultantly, brother of com plainant received bullet
injuries, who died on the spot while his cousin survived ---In the present case, medical
certificate was contradictory with ocular evidence---Medical Officer produced the medical certificate of the deceased according to which the weapon used was "hard and blunt", however it was also mentioned that there was "arm injuries", which created reasonable doubt in prosecution case ---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside
conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court, in circumstances.
(f) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 302---Qatl -i-amd---Appreciation of evidence ---Benefit of doubt ---Recovery of weapon
of offence ---Delay in dispatch of recovered weapon---Effect ---Prosecution case was that the
accused made firi ng upon the brother and cousin of complainant, resultantly, brother of
complainant received bullet injuries, who died on the spot while his cousin survived---
Record showed that weapon of offence (rifle) was recovered from the house of a stranger on the dis closure of accused, which was hidden beneath the pile of bed- sheets ---Neither the said
house belonged to the accused/appellant nor the owner of said house was relative of the
accused, it was not understandable as to how accused kept the rifle in that house , which
created reasonable doubt in the prosecution case ---Allegedly the occurrence took place on
21.01.2016 and the accused appellant was arrested on the next day--- Alleged recovery was
effected on the pointation of accused/appellant on 2.2.2016 after 11 days of his arrest ---
Alleged three empties were taken into possession by the prosecution on the day of
occurrence---Record showed that recovered rifle and empties were sent to Forensic Expert together on 29.07.2016 and it was received by Forensic Science L aboratory on 12.8.2016
after eight months ---Statement of recovery witness was recorded by the Trial Court on
2.5.2016 and empties and rifle were produced before the Trial Court ---Said facts showed that
the bullet empties and rifle were sent to Forensic Exp ert after eight months from the recovery
as well as after recording statement of recovery witness and production of allegedly recovered bullet empties and rifle before the court ---Sending of crime weapon (rifle) and
bullet empties together with delay of ei ght months to Forensic Expert created reasonable
doubt in the prosecution case ---Report of Forensic Expert was inconsequential, in
circumstances ---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside conviction
and sentence recorded by the Trial C ourt, in circumstances.
Sajjan Solangi v. The State 2019 SCMR 872; Nazir Ahmed v. The State 2016 SCMR
1628; Ali Sher and others v. The State 2008 SCMR 707; Israr Ali v. The State 2007 SCMR
525 and Muhammad Ashraf v. The State 2019 SCMR 652 rel.
(g) Criminal trial ---
----Benefit of doubt ---Principle ---One circumstance, which created reasonable dent in the
veracity of the prosecution version, could be taken into consideration for extending benefit of doubt by the accused, not as a matter of grace rathe r as a matter of right.
Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 and Riaz Masih v. State 1995 SCMR
1730 rel.
Faizullah Kakar for Appellant.
Naseebullah Kasi for the Complainant.
Ameer Hamza Mengal, DPG along with Abdul Karim Malghani, State Counsel f or the
State.
Date of hearing: 1st August, 2019.
JUDGMENT
ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J. ---The appellant having been involved in case FIR No.
3/2016 dated 22.01.2016 registered under section 302, P.P.C. at Levies Thana Killa Saifullah
was tried by learned Session s Judge, Killa Saifullah ("trial court") and on completion thereof
by means of judgment dated 12.11.2016 ("impugned judgment"), convicted and sentenced the appellant in the following terms:--
"16....... Keeping in view the decision made herein above, the accused is hereby convicted under section 302(b) of Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death."
Aggrieved from the impugned judgment the appellant has assailed his conviction and
sentence through Criminal Appeal bearing No.353 of 2016, while the tri al court forwarded
Murder Reference No.09 of 2016 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence inflicted upon the convict/appellant in terms of section 374, Cr.P.C. as both the cases are arising out one and the same judgment of the trial court, therefor e same are being disposed of through
this single judgment.
2. The prosecution story as disclosed in the complaint Ex.P/1- A recorded on the
statement of PW -1 Akbar Shah son of Haji Khosti (complainant) is that on 22.01.2016 at
4:00 p.m. his brother namely W ali Khan (deceased) and his cousin Abdul Wahid were
working in his field situated at Talag Haiderzai Killa Saifullah. In the meanwhile, the appellant Jalat Khan holding a rifle came there and made firing. Resultantly, his brother Wali Khan received bullet injuries, who died on the spot and the dead body was brought to Civil Hospital Killa Saifullah while his cousin luckily survived. Hence the criminal report.
3. After completion of the investigation the challan was prepared and submitted before
the trial court. The trial court after observing the codal formalities as provided under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge against the appellant to which he did not
plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced as many as eight witnesses during
trial. Akbar Shah (PW -1) was the complainant of the case. Zar Dad, Levies Sepoy (PW -2)
was recovery witness of three bullet empties and blood -stained cow -dung (Ex.P/2 -A). Abdul
Wahid (PW- 3) was the eye- witness of the occurrence. Muhammad Essa, Naib Risaldar
Levies (PW- 4) was witness of recovery of weapon of offence i.e. rifle 303 bore, along with
live cartridges, allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant, (Ex.P/4 -A). Rafiullah,
Levies Sepoy (PW- 5) was re covery witness of blood- stained clothes of the deceased (Ex.P/5-
A). Zainullah (PW -6-A) and Akhtar Khan (PW -7) are eye- witnesses of the alleged
occurrence. The Medical Officer of DHQ Hospital Killa Saifullah (PW- 6) examined the dead
body of the deceased Wal i Khan and produced the medial certificate Ex.P./6 -A, wherein the
following injuries were found on the dead body:
"Firearm injury: A small circular wound of entry on front of chest left side above left nipple and a larse [sic] would [sic] of exist on back of chest.
Duration: Fresh.
Weapon used: Hard and Blunt.
Cause of death: vital organ damage circulatory and aspiratory failure.
Nature: Fatal."
Muhammad Asadullah Khan, Tehsildar Levies (PW -8) was the investigation officer
of the case, who stated about various steps taken by him during investigation of the case. He
produced (Ex.P/8- A to Ex.P/8 -H).
The statement of the appellant/accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
wherein he rebutted the allegation levelled against him and profes sed his innocence. The
appellant neither opted to appear as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any defense witness. After hearing arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, the trial court while e valuating the evidence available
on record found the version of the prosecution proved beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Resultantly, recorded conviction to the appellant in the above terms.
5. Arguments advanced from both the sides have been heard. W e have also minutely
gone through the record available on file with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties. It is an established principle of law that each criminal case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and the same seldom coinc ide with each other on salient features.
Admittedly it is an unfortunate incident in which brother of the complainant lost his life after sustaining firearm injuries, but to put the facts and circumstances in equilibrium with the touchstone of safe adminis tration of justice, we have scrutinized the whole evidence
available on record while weighing the same on judicial parlance. It has been observed by us that the prosecution has led evidence in the shape of ocular account, medical evidence, as well as inves tigation besides other attending circumstances.
6. As far as merits of the case are concerned, we have observed that the prosecution
produced PW -3 Abdul Wahid, PW -6-A, Zainullah and PW -7 Akhtar Khan, who were eye -
witnesses of the occurrence. Perusal of rec ord shows that the prosecution has produced the
above three witnesses in support of its charge but all the above three witnesses are closely related to the deceased Wali Khan. PW- 3 Abdul Wahid and PW -6-A Zainullah are cousins of
the deceased whereas PW- 7 Akhtar Khan is brother of the deceased, therefore, for safe
dispensation of justice, their evidence will have to be appreciated with care and caution. No doubt the evidence of the related witnesses cannot be discarded on the ground of its being related to t he victim but if it is found that the testimony of the related witness got no
corroboration from attending circumstances of the case or the conduct shown by them at the time of occurrence or just thereafter as such, which cannot be expected from a prudent person, then under such circumstances the evidence furnished by related witnesses cannot be easily discarded. At the touchstone of the above we now take in to consideration the testimonies furnished by the above witnesses in the case.
7. It reflects from t he record that the occurrence took place at 4:00 p.m. allegedly in
presence of the above three witnesses but the report was lodged at 6:30 p.m. by PW -1 Akbar
Shah at DHQ Hospital Killa Saifullah who is not an eye -witness of the alleged occurrence.
Accordin g to statement of PW -1 when he was informed about the incident by one Akbar he
reached Shingai Grid Station where- after the deceased Wali Khan was taken to the hospital
in one Abdul Aziz's vehicle. At the hospital he gave his report to Tehsildar Levies for
registration of FIR. The conduct of Abdul Wahid (PW -3), Zainullah (PW -6-A) and Akhtar
Khan (PW -7), who are cousins and brother of the deceased, who instead of shifting the
deceased Wali Khan to the hospital kept waiting for Akbar Shah (PW -1) appears to be
unnatural. According to PW -1, when he was informed about the alleged incident he was
present at Talag Haidarzai which is at a distance of thirteen kilometers from the place of
occurrence. According to PW- 6-A Zainullah and PW -7 Akhtar Khan they were presen t at
their home when they were informed on telephone that the deceased Wali Khan succumbed
to the injuries. Even they did not go with the dead body of the deceased to the hospital. Had they been present at the spot at the time of alleged occurrence they mu st have taken the
deceased Wali Khan either to the hospital or to Levies Station, which admittedly was not done. For the sake of arguments, even if it is assumed for a moment that personally, they were unable to take the deceased either to the hospital or levies station, then they could at least have deputed someone else for the purpose rather than waiting for the complainant namely Akbar Shah on the spot for taking the deceased to hospital. Ordinarily, from PW -3
Abdul Wahid, PW -6-A Zainullah and PW -7 Akhta r Khan, being brother and cousins of the
deceased, one does not expect such conduct.
8. It has been stated earlier that PW- 1 Akbar Shah is not eye -witness of the alleged
occurrence but the FIR was lodged by the said witness. For the sake of argument, if it is
presumed that PW -3, Abdul Wahid, PW -6-A Zainullah and PW -7 Akhtar Khan were present
at the place of occurrence, then naturally they would have lodged the report promptly but they did not do so. It seems that they were not present at the place of occurr ence.
Furthermore, the FIR was lodged with delay of two and a half hours without any plausible explanation, which too creates doubt on the credibility of the above three eye -witnesses.
Reliance in this behalf is placed on the case of Mehmood Ahmad and 3 ot hers v. The State
and another 1995 SCMR 127.
It is, important to mention here that the occurrence took place on 22.1.2016 at 4:00
pm while PW -3, PW -6-A and PW -7 claimed to have seen the occurrence and they are also
closely related to the deceased but the statements of PW -6-A and PW -7 were recorded under
section 161, Cr.P.C. with delay of one day i.e. on the next day of the occurrence and statement of PW -3 Abdul Wahid was recorded at night on the day of occurrence at his home,
without any plausible explanat ion, therefore, the same is hit by the ratio decidendi given by
august Supreme Court of Pakistan laid down in the case of Abdul Khaliq v. The State (1996 SCMR 1553) wherein it was held as under:
".... It is a settled position of law that late recording of 161, Cr.P.C. statement of a
prosecution witness reduces its value to nil unless there is plausible explanation for such delay."
Reliance is also placed on the dictum of law laid down in the cases of Sahib Gul v.
Ziarat Gul and others (1976 SCMR 236).
9. Apart from the above, PW- 3 Abdul Wahid, PW -6-A Zainullah and PW -7 Akhtar
Khan were highly interested, who have inimically deposed against the appellant. First reason for disbelieving them is that their presence on the spot was unnatural because ha d they been
present at the spot they would have received some injuries by the shots fired by the appellant.
It appears that they have tried to suppress their interestedness. All the three witnesses did not
justify their presence at the time and place of oc currence. It does not appeal to the logic that
the persons whose' brother and cousin had been murdered, neither made any resistance nor raised hue and cry for help despite the fact that the alleged occurrence took place near the house of one Razo. As per P W-3 Abdul Wahid on 22.01.2016 at 4:00 p.m. he and deceased
Wali Khan were in their fields, meanwhile the appellant Jalat Khan armed with a rifle came
to the spot and aimed at them; that he and Wali Khan ran toward the house of Razo and the
appellant follow ed them and started firing upon them; that luckily he escaped unhurt but
Wali Khan received injuries on his chest. On the other hand according to Zainullah (PW -6-
A) and Akhtar Khan (PW -7) on 22.01.2016 they along with Abdul Wahid (PW -3) and
deceased Wali K han were working in the fields at 4:00 pm, when the appellant came to the
spot with a rifle and started firing upon them; that they ran towards the house of one Razo and the appellant followed them and again made firing, whereby the deceased Wali Khan received bullet injuries.
If the statements of the above witnesses is believed to be true for a moment, then the
question arises as to why and how the appellant spared them and did not even try to kill them, when he could have easily killed them because they were empty handed and at his
mercy, coupled with the fact that they could depose against him as eye -witnesses being
brother and cousins of the deceased. The mode and manner of the occurrence, advanced by
the prosecution witnesses is not appealable to the p rudent mind. Another interesting feature
of the case is that the appellant had no motive to fire at the deceased, armed with a rifle once at the agriculture field and again near the houses. According to statements of the above so-called eye- witnesses they escaped unhurt and did not even receive a scratch in the alleged
incident, despite the fact that they were empty handed and were totally at the mercy of the
appellant, but they were left alive and the appellant selected to kill the brother of the complainant and PW -7 Akhtar Khan, with whom they have no direct motive and so it may be
inferred that the incident did not take place in the way and manner, as it was alleged.
10. The presence of PW- 6-A Zainullah and PW- 7 Akhtar Khan becomes further doubtful,
becau se the complainant did not mention the names of the said witnesses in his report
Ex.P/1- A and did not state a single word in his report as well as in his statement that they
were present at the time of alleged occurrence. The statement of PW- 3 is contradic tory with
the statements of PW -6-A and PW7. According to PW -3 Abdul Wahid, he and deceased Wali
Khan were working at the agriculture field and he did not mention the names of PW -6-A and
PW-7 but on the other hand, according to PW -6-A and PW -7, they along w ith Abdul Wahid
(PW -3) and deceased Wali Khan were working at agriculture fields. Statement of the above
witnesses becomes further contradictory because, according to PW -3 Abdul Wahid, appellant
Jalat Khan came at the place of occurrence and pointed rifle upon them. On the other hand
according to PW -6-A and P W -7, they were working at the field when the appellant came to
the spot and made firing when they ran away but the appellant followed them and again made firing when they reached near the houses. All t hese material contradictions in the statements
of the above eye -witnesses would lead to obvious inference that the occurrence was not
witnessed by them and their presence at the spot was doubtful.
11. According to the eye -witnesses the appellant made firin g near the houses and
according to the complainant (PW -1) he was informed by one Akbar and the deceased was
taken to the hospital in a vehicle of one Abdul Aziz. No impartial evidence could have come
from the neighborhood to corroborate the prosecution cas e, which of course could have been
available due to gunshots fired. Such being the case, the indication and production of only interested and inter -related persons and non- production of Muhammad Akbar and Abdul
Aziz as witnesses before the court further ma kes the prosecution case doubtful under Article
129(g) of Qanun- e-Shahadat Order 1984. Reliance is placed in the case of Pathan v. The
State (2015 SCMR 315).
12. It is worthwhile to mention here that the medical certificate itself is contradictory
with oc ular evidence. PW- 6 produced the medical certificate of the deceased as Ex.P/6 -A
according to which the weapon used was "hard and blunt", however it is also mentioned in injury No.1 that there is "arm injuries", which create reasonable doubt in prosecution case
because PW- 6 did not explain as to how he mentioned the words "hard and blunt" with
regard to weapon used.
13. As far as alleged recovery of rifle at the instance of the appellant and positive forensic
expert report i.e. Ex.P/8- E are concerned, prosecution produced PW -4 Muhammad Essa,
Levies Khasadar. According to his version on 12.06.2016 at Levies Thana Killa Saifullah the accused disclosed during investigation that he can recover the crime weapon (rifle). On the said disclosure, the accused/appella nt was taken to the house of one Abdul Ghafar,
wherefrom the appellant got the rifle recovered, which was hidden beneath the pile of bed-sheets, which was taken into possession through recovery memo Ex.P/4- B. According to
PW-4 the appellant was taken in a levies pickup, when the accused was sitting in the rear of
the vehicle, whereas there was also a curtain hanging between the rear (back of the pickup)
and front portion of the vehicle, under such circumstances how it is possible that when he was not sittin g in the front portion of the vehicle rather in the rear of the vehicle (body of the
pickup) and pointed the house of one Abdul Ghafar. It has further been stated by PW -4 that
when they reached to the house of Ghaffar, and knocked the door, Abdul Ghaffar a nd his two
sons came out of the house but the prosecution did not make the said two sons and Abdul Ghaffar as a witness and only produced PW -4 Muhammad Essa, levies sepoy as a witness of
recovery. Despite the fact that private witnesses were present at the time of recovery.
Moreover, when, neither the said house belonged to the accused/appellant nor the said Abdul Ghafar is relative of the accused, then how it is possible, that he (accused) kept the rifle in the house of a stranger in a room beneath the pil e of bed -sheets, which creates reasonable
doubt in the prosecution case. Reliance is placed in this regard in the case titled as Sajjan Solangi v. The State (2019 SCMR 872).
14. Allegedly the occurrence took place on 21.01.2016 and the accused/appellant wa s
arrested on the next day. The alleged recovery was effected on pointation of the appellant on 2.2.2016 after 11 days of his arrest. The alleged three empties were taken into possession by the prosecution through recovery memo on the date of occurrence i.e. 21.01.2016. As per record the allegedly recovered rifle and empties were sent to forensic expert together on 29.07.2016 and it was received by FSL on 12th August 2016 after eight months. It is important to mention here that the statement of recovery wit ness was recorded by the trial
court on 2.5.2016 and rifle and bullet empties were produced before the court as Article P -7
and Article P -8, meaning thereby that the bullet empties and rifle were sent to Forensic
Expert after eight months from the recovery as well as after recording statements of recovery
witnesses and production of allegedly recovered bullet empties and rifle before the court.
Sending of crime weapon (rifle) and bullet empties together with delay of eight months to Forensic Expert create r easonable doubt in the prosecution case, therefore, the forensic
expert report in this regard is inconsequential to the prosecution case. Reliance is placed in
the case titled as Nazir Ahmed v. The State (2016 SCMR 1628) wherein it has been held as
under:
"...the crime -empty secured from the place of occurrence was sent to the Forensic
Science Laboratory after recovery of the gun rendering such recovery to be legally unacceptable--- "
Reliance is also placed on the case of Ali Sher and others v. The State (2008 SCMR
707) and Israr Ali v. The State (2007 SCMR 525). In the case of Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (2019 SCMR 652) the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"After scrutiny of evidence, it has been observed by us that no such corroboration is available on record because the empties secured from the spot and the .30 bore pistol
allegedly recovered from the possession of appellant at the time of his arrest were sent to the office of FSL on the same day i.e. on 21.03.2002 after the arrest of appellant on 23.01.2002. In these circumstances, the report of FSL cannot be relied
and is legally inconsequential."
15. All the above narrated facts and circumstances when evaluated on the judicial
parlance reflect that the prosecution has failed to establish the culpability of the appellant in
the instant case through reliable, trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence. It is an established principle of law that for extending benefit of doubt in favour of the accused so many circumstances are not required rath er one circumstance, which creates reasonable dent
in the veracity of the prosecution version can be taken into consideration for the purpose not as a matter of grace rather as a matter of right. Respectful reliance in this regard is placed in the cases of Tariq Pervaiz v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) and Riaz Masih v. State (1995
SCMR 1730).
16. From the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are persuaded to hold that
conviction passed by the learned trial court against the appellant in the circumstance s is
against all canons of law recognized for the safe dispensation of criminal justice. As per dictates of law benefit of every doubt is to be extended in favour of the accused. Resultantly while setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the t rial court in terms of
judgment dated 12.11.2016, Criminal Appeal No.353/2016 filed by the appellant is allowed as a consequence whereof he is ordered to be acquitted of the charge in FIR No. 3/2016 dated 22.01.2016 registered under section 302, P.P.C. at Levies Thana Killa Saifullah. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
The Murder Reference No. 09 of 2016 is answered in NEGATIVE.
JK/88/Bal. Appeal allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.