2023 Y L R 976
[Balochistan]
Before Zaheer- ud-Din Kakar and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, JJ
MUHAMMAD TAHIR---Appellant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 508 of 2021, decided on 25th August, 2022.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b), 147 & 149---Qatl -i-amd, rioting, unlawful assembly ---Appreciation of
evidence--- Related witnesses ---Scope ---Accused was charged that he along with his co -
accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting knife blows ---
Minor quarrel of the deceased with the accused was stated to be the motive behind the
occurrence---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by the brothers and cousins of the deceased ---Relationship of eye -witnesses with the complainant party tho ugh did not
cast aspersions upon their veracity in case their statements were proven natural and no animosity or personal interest of eye -witnesses was involved---However, such witnesses
should not be inimical and they should not have their own axe to grin d against the opposite
party ---As per peculiar circumstances of the case, all the eye- witnesses were not only
extremely inimical but they had to save their own skins as they were nominated accused in the same incident as per version of the accused party ---Keeping in mind that the incident
took place in thickly populated area and presence of independent, impartial witnesses mainly neighbors had been admitted by the prosecution witnesses so much so as per statement of Official Witness, few people present at t he place of the incident wanted to record their
statements, which statements were not recorded and in very mechanical manner individuals, who were extremely hostile and volatile against each other, were made witnesses and the impartial and independent acco unt of actual incident, regarding true facts viz -a-vie which
party was actual culprit and aggressor was missing---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt ---
Appeal against convic tion was allowed, in circumstances.
Ali Sher v. State 2008 SCMR 707 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 147 & 149---Qatl -i-amd, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of
evidence--- Presence of complainant at the spot was doubtful ---Scope---Accused was charged
that he along with his co -accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by
inflicting knife blows ---Complainant said that quarrel had taken place and regarding that
quarrel, meeting at Masjid took place to settle the issue, whereas the eye- witness during
cross -examination admitted that he had no knowledge that how many days after the quarrel
took place whereas the said eye- witness asserted that in fact accused party attacked upon
deceased in front of his house with sti cks and daggers ---No specific role was given to any of
the said accused with regard to fatal blow upon deceased by the said witness though, stated,
that he was also injured during the fight but there was no medical certificate to support his
contention---O ther eye -witness said in fact he took the deceased along with one neighbor to
hospital but the very perusal of medical legal certificate of deceased contradicted that fact as
according to the Medico Legal Certificate of deceased, he was brought by SHO ---Perusal of
the depositions of said witnesses visualized the fact that complainant was not present at the place of incident as he admitted that he was in Masjid which was at the distance of five minute's walk and he had not seen the incident by himself, where as in the ocular account of
eye-witness it was found that he was sitting at home when alleged incident took place ---
Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt ---Appeal against conv iction was allowed, in circumstances.
(c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 147 & 149---Qatl -i-amd, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of
evidence--- Co-accused were acquitted on the same set of evidence--- Effect ---Accused was
charged that he along with his co -accused committed murder of the brother of the
complainant by inflicting knife blows ---Though the complainant pointed out that said
incident was prior to fatal incident in which the deceased lost his life but the statement of eye-witness narrated a different story as he mentioned that first incident (scuffle) took place
days before from the day of fatal incident ---Trial Court also did not believe the said
witnesses and acquitted the co -accused on the same set of evidence and as no appeal against
acquittal had been preferred by the complainant party against the acquitted co- accused,
therefore the findings to that extent had attained finality, whereas the accused had been convicted on the basis of same set of evidence ---Ocular account of the said witnesses was
neither trustworthy nor confidence -inspiring, whereas the ocular account of two other
witnesses was also not relevant as they had admitted that they had not seen the incident ---
Circumstances established that the prosecution had faile d to prove its case against the
accused beyond shadow of doubt ---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Darvaish and others v. The State 2019 PCr.LJ 1086; Irfan Ali v. The
State 2015 SCMR 840; Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan PL D 1985 SC 11 and Tariq v.
The State 2017 SCMR 1672 rel.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 147 & 149---Qatl -i-amd, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of
evidence--- Recovery of weapon of offence on the instance of accused ---Scope ---Relia nce---
Accused was charged that he along with his co- accused committed murder of the brother of
the complainant by inflicting knife blows ---According to the prosecution case the crime
weapon i.e. knife was taken into possession and the parcel containing kni fe was produced in
court ---Recovery witness appeared and got exhibited the said knife and stated that it was
handed over to him by the complainant and the said knife was blood- stained and according to
him, complainant told him that in fact his brother was wounded by that knife ---Neither the
knife was sent for Forensic Analysis for grouping to ascertain whether the blood it contained
was of deceased nor the grouping of blood obtained from the place of incident was done to evaluate whether it belonged to dece ased or to other persons ---Despite that available
evidence to determine the real facts, same was ignored so only negative inferences could be
drawn in that context ---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its
case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt ---Appeal against conviction was allowed,
in circumstances .
Naveed Asghar v. The State PLD 2021SC 600 and Irfan Ali v. The State 2015 SCMR
840 rel.
(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 302(b), 147 & 149---Qatl -i-amd, rioting, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of
evidence--- Benefit of doubt ---Scope ---Accused was charged that he along with his co-
accused committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting knife blows ---
From detailed analysis of prosecution evidenc e, it transpired that the ingredients of
conspiracy and pre -planned attack were not found--- Admittedly, the elders of rival groups
were settling the dispute amicably and even had reached at a compromise but it transpired
that at the heat of the moment, to show their strength, brawl took place and resulted into free fight in which both parties received injuries ---Both parties made allegations against each
other and deliberately attempted to portray themselves as innocent ---In the given
circumstances, it was extremely hard to find the truth as even Investigating Officer did not
venture to give definite findings against the actual culprits and sent reports under S.173, Cr.P.C., against both the parties ---Trial Court conducted separate trials of both the parties (as
separate Challans were Submitted) but instead of arriving at definite conclusions regarding actual aggressors convicted the accused in the case and also convicted the person who belonged to the complainant party so role of present accused in the whole episode was
shrouded in mystery, due to unreliable, highly interested alleged eye -witnesses so no definite
findings for the purpose of upholding the conviction could be arrived at ---Circumstances
established that the prosecution had failed to prove its ca se against the accused beyond
shadow of doubt ---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
Rajmeer Khan and another v. Noor -ul-Haq and others 2019 SCMR 1949 rel.
Rehmatullah Barrech for Appellant.
Habib -ur-Rehman Baloch and Atif Faizan Usto for the Complainant.
Muhammad Naeem Kakar, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.
Date of hearing: 3rd August, 2022.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD AAMIR NAWAZ RANA, J. ---The complainant Muhammad
Ramzan son of Lal Mu hammad reported to police authorities that in the evening of
28.05.2020, his younger brother Raheem Ullah had minor quarrel and on the intervention of
the neighbors, matter was calmed down and it was agreed that according to tribal traditions issue would be resolved. At night after Esha prayer when Jirga was convened in the Masjid,
in order to settle this issue, the complainant says, meanwhile he received the information
from one Faiz Ullah on his cell phone that his brother Rehmat Ullah has been beaten by the
opposite party and he is severely injured and neighbors are shifting him to hospital, the
complainant rushed to the place of incident and was informed by his father that Rehmat Ullah was sitting outside the home, meanwhile Muhammad Tahir (Appellant), N aseeb Ullah,
Naqeeb Ullah, Bismillah, Asmat, Zubair and Sardar Muhammad came at about 10:30 PM and they attacked upon Rehmat Ullah and had beaten him with kicks, fists and knifes, resultantly Rehmat Ullah received serious injuries. The complainant further mentioned that when he reached at the hospital along with his relatives, he found the dead body of his brother Rehmat Ullah dipped in blood as deceased had received knife wounds on his chest.
2. The FIR No.73/2020 was lodged on 29.05.2020 under sections 302, 147, 149, P.P.C.
at Police Station Airport, Quetta against aforementioned accused persons. The accused were
arrested and after investigation, report under section 173, Cr.P.C was submitted and trial
commenced of all nominated accused except Zubair son o f Agha Muhammad who was
absconder. That at the conclusion of the trial, the Learned Additional Session Judge -IV,
Quetta vide judgment dated 29/10/2021 (impugned herein) convicted the appellant Muhammad Tahir son of Qazi Muhammad Agha under section 302- B, P.P.C. and sentenced
him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. He was also ordered to pay Rs.200,000/ - as
compensation under section 544- A, Cr .P.C to the legal heirs of deceased. In default of
payment of the compensation, the two years simple imprisonment was stipulated while
benefit of section 382- B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favor of the appellant while the
remaining accused facing the trial were acquitted of the charge and to the extent of absconding accused, the case was ordered to be ke pt in dormant.
3. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and profess his innocence.
4. The Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that in fact it was a cross version
case, though FIR was lodged against the appellant and other co -accused bu t in view of
Sughran Bibi
1 case the cross version was also recorded by the Investigation Officer and
report under section 173, Cr.P.C was filed against the complainant party as well, and in the
same incident, Raheem Ullah, the brother of the complainant, w as also convicted by the same
Trial Court for causing injury to Naqeeb Ullah (cousin of appellant), further contended that
in fact the complainant party was the aggressor and since evidence to the extent of remaining accused persons was not believed by the Trial Court, therefore there was no occasion to
convict the appellant.
5. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of complainant supported the impugned
judgment, the counsel appearing on behalf of the State also argued for maintaining the conviction and a sserted that the prosecution has successfully proven the case against the
appellant; beyond any reasonable doubt.
Arguments heard and with the assistance of Learned Counsel of the parties, the record
perused.
6. The prosecution case is mainly based upon ocular evidence, medical evidence and
alleged recovery of knife and alleged disclosure by the appellant before police officials
during his arrest, it would be appropriate for the purpose of critical reappraisal of the conclusions drawn by the Trial Court that these pieces of evidence be discussed separately in order to evaluate their veracity on the touchstone of settled principles of criminal jurisprudence enunciated by Honorable Supreme Court.
OCULAR EVIDENCE:
The ocular account of (PW 1) complainant, Muhammad Ramzan son of Lal
Muhammad, (PW 2) Faiz Muhammad son of Hazoor Bakhsh, (PW 3) Raheem Ullah son of
Lal Muhammad and (PW 4) Shah Muhammad son of Taj Muhammad has been given
importance by the Trial Court, interestingly these all prosecution witnesses ar e accused and
were reported against under section 173, Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer while (PW 3) Raheem Ullah was convicted also by the Trial Court by believing the version of the appellant party, the inter -se relationship of these witnesses is imp ortant; from their cross -examination,
it has surfaced that they are closely related to each other e.g.
I. Muhammad Ramzan (complainant), brother of deceased
II. Faiz Muhammad (PW2) cousin of deceased.
III. Raheem Ullah (PW 3) brother of deceased.
IV. Shah Muhammad (PW 4) cousin of deceased.
That the relationship of eye -witnesses with the complainant party though does not
cast aspersions upon their veracity in case their statements are proven natural and no animosity or personal interest of eye- witnesses is involved, it is a settled principle that such
witnesses should not be inimical and they should not have their own axe to grind against the opposite party. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment passed by Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan titled as Ali Sher v. State
2.
Whereas, considering the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, all the eye-
witnesses were not only extremely inimical but they had to save their own skins as they were nominated accused in the same incident as per version of the appellant party, so in such
scenario and keeping in mind that the incident took place in thickly populated area and
presence of independent, impartial witnesses mainly neighbors has been admitted by the
prosecution witne sses so much so as per statement of (PW 7) Asif Iqbal ASI, few people
present at the place of the incident wanted to record their statements, unfortunately such statements were not recorded and in very mechanical manner individuals, who were
extremely host ile and volatile against each other, were made witnesses and the impartial and
independent account of actual incident, regarding true facts viz -a-vie which party was actual
culprit and aggressor is missing. Apart from that a number of contradictions have been found
while comparing the statements of aforementioned witnesses e.g. complainant says that on 28/05/2020 quarrel had taken place and regarding that quarrel, meeting at Masjid took place
to settle the issue whereas the PW 4 during cross -examination adm its that he has no
knowledge that how many days back the quarrel took place whereas the said eye -witness
asserts that in fact Asmat, Zubair, Tahir (appellant) attacked upon deceased in front of his
house with sticks and daggers, no specific role was given to any of the said accused with
regard to fatal blow upon deceased by the said witness though, says, that he was also injured during the fight but there is no medical certificate to support his contention . The PW 2 says
in fact he took the deceased along with one neighbor to hospital but the very perusal of
medical legal certificate of deceased Rehmat Ullah contradicts this fact as according to the
MLC of deceased, he was brought by Niaz (SHO).
The perusal of the depositions of above mentioned PWs visuali zes the fact that
complainant was not present at the place of incident as he admits that he was in Masjid which is at the distance of 5 minutes' walk and he has not seen the incident by himself, whereas in the ocular account of PW 2 it is found that he was sitting at home when alleged
incident took place though the Learned Counsel for the complainant pointed out that this incident was prior to fatal incident in which the deceased Rehmat Ullah lost his life but the statement of PW 4 narrates a different stor y as he mentioned that first incident (scuffle) took
place days before from the day of fatal incident. The Trial Court also did not believe these witnesses and acquitted the co -accused on the same set of evidence and as no appeal against
acquittal has been preferred by the complainant party against the acquitted co- accused,
therefore the findings to that extent have attained finality, whereas the appellant has been convicted on the basis of same set of evidence, so in such view of the matter the ocular acco unt of these witnesses is neither trustworthy nor confidence -inspiring, whereas the
ocular account of PW 5 and 6 is also not relevant as they have admitted that they have not seen the incident. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case of Muhammad Da rvaish and
others v. The State
3.
"We are mindful of the fact that the testimony of a witness cannot be discredited merely on account of his relationship with deceased, however, if he is found locked in some rivalry or enmity of a long or short duration, personal vengeance or grudge
arising out of some financial, political or severe family rift with the accused, he attains the status of interested or partisan witness. Since out of human frailty, it is expected that a witness entangled in abhorrence or grud ge affair with his adversaries
can tell lie to satisfy his grouse and can even go to the extent of implicating innocent persons in a crime, hence to attain credence, his testimony is required to be appraised with extreme circumspection and for that, matter is to be stringently evaluated on the
touchstone of strong corroboration. In holding so, we are fortified from the observation of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan expressed in the case titled as Umar Hayat and 3 others v. The State (1997 SCMR 1076) which is as under: -
"It is a settled position of law that evidence of a partisan witness requires corroboration before the same is relied on for conviction. In the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. Abdul Khaliq and others (1971 SCMR 500) the prosecution witness es were
not only related inter se but they were also related with the deceased and it was held that such evidence required some corroboration to ensure the witnesses were speaking the truth."
RECOVERY OF CRIME WEAPON (KNIFE):
According to the prosecution case the crime weapon i.e. knife was taken into
possession through Exhibit Exp/7- C and the parcel containing knife was produced in court as
Article P/1. The (PW 7) Asif Iqbal ASI appeared and got exhibited the said knife and stated
that it was handed over to him by the complainant namely Muhammad Ramzan and the said
knife was blood- stained and according to Asif Iqbal ASI Muhammad Ramzan told him that
in fact his brother was wounded by this knife.
Neither the knife was sent for Forensic Analysis for grouping to ascertain whether the
blood it contained was of deceased Rehmat Ullah nor the grouping of blood obtained from the place of incident was done to evaluate whether it belonged to deceased or to other persons, despite this available evidence t o determine the real facts, same was ignored so only
negative inferences can be drawn in this context. Reliance in this regard is being placed in the case of Naveed Asghar v. The State
4.
This aspect of the matter was also considered in the case titled as Irfan Ali v. The
State5, the relevant excerpt is reproduced:
"12. To infuse artificial life into the case of the prosecution, visibly dishonest attempts were made as a dagger was also shown having been recovered, however, the recovery memo. (Exh.PL) woul d show that full description of the dagger has been
given but blood stains on it were omitted therefore, when blood was not found on it, how the Chemical Examiner could give an opinion about the presence of human blood on it. This would show that same was planted against the appellant with arranged human blood and when no grouping of the blood was made with the blood- stained
clothes of the deceased to create a nexus between the two, the same is of no help to the prosecution."
MEDICOLEGAL CERTIFICATE AND ALL EGED DISCLOSURE OF APPELLANT:
MLC OF REHMATULLAH DECEASED:
INJURIES:
Stab wound left side lateral side chest 3x1cm
Incise wound left side lateral side chest 1 cm
2 Stab wound right side lateral side chest 2,2cm
OPINION:
Probable Cause Of Death Is Damag e Of Vital Organs Of (Chest) Caused By Sharp
Weapon And Homicidal In Manner.
7. The MLC of the deceased cannot be considered as corroborative piece of evidence as
it only mentions the wounds received by the deceased at the most it could have been supportive piece of evidence, in case the substantive evidence and corroborative evidence worth relying was available against appellant.
8. The alleged disclosure has also no value being in the nature of extrajudicial
confession and no new fact surfacing through the same so the prosecution case also does not
get any support from the same as well.
9. From detailed analysis of prosecution evidence, it transpired that the ingredients of
conspiracy and pre- planned attack are not found, admittedly the elders of rival groups were
settling the dispute amicably and even had reached at a compromise but it transpires that at the heat of the moment, to show their strength, brawl took place and resulted into free fight in which both parties received injuries, both parti es made allegations against each other and
deliberately attempted to portray themselves as innocent, in the given circumstances it is extremely hard to find the truth as even Investigating Officer did not venture to give definite findings against the actua l culprits and sent reports under section 173, Cr.P.C against both
the parties, the Trial Court conducted separate trails of both the parties (as separate Challans were submitted) but instead of arriving at definite conclusions regarding actual aggressors convicted the appellant in this case and convicted the Raheem Ullah who belonged to the complainant party so role of appellant in this whole episode is shrouded in mystery, due to unreliable, highly interested, alleged eye -witnesses so no definite findings for the purpose of
upholding the conviction can be arrived at, therefore we tried to sought wisdom from
different judgments of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan and in this regard the judgment
passed in the case of Rajmeer Khan and another v. Noor -ul-Haq and others
6 is relied upon
the relevant excerpt is as under:
"-----We have noticed that many of the acquitted accused persons from both the sides
had been attributed active and effective roles but the stories in that regard had been
disbelieved by the c ourts below. Both the parties had tried to hide the truth and to
minimize their own roles. After disbelieving the stories advanced by both the rival
parties the High Court had reconstructed the story and had observed that the case in
hand was the case of f ree fight entailing individual liability of each accused person.
We have, however, found that the truth in this case was mixed very heavily with
something which was untrue and both the parties to this case had not approached the
court with clean hands. In these circumstances we have found it to be impossible to
discern the truth from such a heap of falsehood and, thus, we are left with no other
option but to acquit Mushtaq Ahmed appellant by extending the benefit of doubt to
him. "
The Trial Court, on the same set of evidence, has acquitted the co -accused and
disbelieved their involvement while the same witnesses have been relied for the purpose of
convicting the appellant. The time -honored principle in this context has always been when
testimony of a witne ss is not given credence to the extent of one set of accused then the same
testimony should be cautiously evaluated while analyzing the role of other accused for the
purpose of convicting them; in this regard, the reliance is placed upon the case of Irfan Ali v.
The State7, the relevant para is reproduced:
"14. Whenever witnesses are found to have falsely deposed with regard to the
involvement of one co- accused then, ordinarily, they cannot be relied upon qua the
other co -accused unless their testimony is sufficiently corroborated through strong
corroboratory evidence, coming from unimpeachable source, is a deeply entrenched and cardinal principle of justice. We do not find a single iota of corroboratory evidence to substantiate the tainted evidence of the same set of witnesses with regard
to the involvement of the appellant in the crime, hence recording conviction of the
appellant on the same evidence was absolutely unjustified."
This principle was also considered in the case of Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan8
in which it was held that:
"When witnesses are disbelieved qua the acquitted co -accused to whom same and
similar role was attributed then they shall not be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless they are strongly corroborated by evidence coming from
independent source."
Reliance is also placed, in this regard, in the case titled as Tariq v. The State
9 (2017
SCMR 1672)
Pith and substance of above deliberations is that in a free fight without any prior
planning or conspiracy the doctr ine of vicarious liability is not attracted; each person from
either side is responsible for his own act but since no specific role has been assigned to the appellant by the prosecution witnesses, so the question arises that on what basis the Trial Court a cquitted the co -accused and convicted the appellant? The prosecution has to prove its
case beyond any reasonable doubt, it is time -tested canon of safe administration of justice
that in criminal cases finding of guilt against an accused cannot be based on the basis of probabilities, assumptions, surmises and conjunctures. The prosecution cannot take any advantage of weak defense or no defense on the part of accused as prose -cution is bound to
prove its case on its own footing and in case any doubt is create d in the prosecution case, the
benefit must go to the accused. It is also settled principle of law that number of doubts are not
required to decide case in favor of accused rather even a single doubt is enough to shatter the
prosecution case.
10. The deposition of prosecution witnesses creates doubts about actual role of the
appellant and in such view of the matter it would not be safe to upheld the conviction handed
over by the Trial Court considering the golden principles of criminal jurisprudence, i n which
accused is considered entitled for benefit of doubt, not as a matter of grace but as a matter of
right. Wisdom has been sought in this regard from the case titled as Naveed Asghar v. The State
10, the relevant excerpt is reproduced:
"33. It is a we ll-established principle of administration of justice in criminal cases that
finding of guilt against an accused person cannot be based merely on the high probabilities that may be inferred from evidence in a given case. The finding as regards his guilt should be rested surely and firmly on the evidence produced in the case and the plain inferences of guilt that may irresistibly be drawn from that evidence. Mere conjectures and probabilities cannot take the place of proof. If a case is decided merely on high probabilities regarding the existence or non -existence of a
fact to prove the guilt of a person, the golden rule of giving "benefit of doubt" to an accused person, which has been a dominant feature of the administration of criminal justice in this countr y with the consistent approval of the Constitutional Courts, will
be reduced to a naught. The prosecution is under obligation to prove its case against the accused person at the standard of proof required in criminal cases, namely,
beyond reasonable doubt standard, and cannot be said to have discharged this
obligation by producing evidence that merely meets the preponderance of probability standard applied in civil cases. If the prosecution fails to discharge its said obligation and there remains a reasonab le doubt, not an imaginary or artificial doubt, as to the
guilt of the accused person, the benefit of that doubt is to be given to the accused
person as of right, not as of concession. The rule of giving benefit of doubt to accused
person is essentially a rule of caution and prudence, and is deep rooted in our
jurisprudence for safe administration of criminal justice. In common law, it is based on the maxim, "It is better that ten guilty persons be acquitted rather than one innocent person be convicted". While in Islamic criminal law it is based on the high authority of sayings of the Holy Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him): "Avert punishments [hudood] when there are doubts"; and" Drive off the ordained crimes from the Muslims as far as you can. If there i s any place of refuge for him [accused],
let him have his way, because the leader's mistake in pardon is better than his mistake in punishment". A three -member Bench of this Court has quoted probably latter part
of the last mentioned saying of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) in Ayub Masih v. State in the English translation thus: "Mistake of Qazi (Judge) in releasing a criminal is better than his mistake in punishing an innocent."
The upshot of aforementioned reasoning, deliberations and wisdom obtained from
cited judgments of Apex Court of the country, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentences of the appellant Muhammad Tahir son of Syed Muhammad Agha are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge(s) framed against him. The appellant is behind the bars, he is ordered to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case. Appeal allowed.
JK/150/Bal. ??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.