ABDUL GHAFFAR vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Abdul Ghaffar, who was found guilty of an offence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, given that the appellant was only alleged to have engaged in ineffective firing and caused no injuries to any person. Upon review, the Court observed that the appellant was not directly involved in the motive behind the incident, no incriminating evidence was recovered from his possession to corroborate the ocular account, and the medical evidence did not implicate him. The Court held that, given the history of strained relations and litigation between the parties, the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, extending the benefit of the doubt to the appellant and ordering his acquittal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where evidence is insufficient and false implication is a real possibility, the accused is entitled to acquittal.
- Does the allegation of ineffective firing, without any corroborating recovery or medical evidence, suffice to sustain a conviction for murder?
- Can an accused be acquitted when the prosecution fails to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to the possibility of false implication arising from previous litigation?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the medical evidence is inconsequential regarding their specific role in the alleged crime?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.~ Abdul Ghaffar appellant was convicted for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 20-4-2000 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Pakpattan Sharif and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and pay a sum Rs,25,000 to the heirs Of Muhammad Anwar deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through the present appeal.
2. According to the prosecution's case Muhammad Anwar deceased was done to death and Mst.
Begum (P.W.4) was given injuries in an incident taking place in Chak No,27/SP within the area of Police Station Chak Baidi, District Pakpattan Sharif at 6-00 p.m. On 8-11-1997. F.I.R. No,339 was lodged in respect of that incident by Muhammad Akbar complainant (P. W. 3) at 8-50 p.m. On 8-11- 1997 at Police Station Chak Baidi, District Pakpattan Sharif for an offence under section 302, P.P.C.
Read with section 34, P.P.C. According to the F.I.R. Muhammad Anwar deceased had been given injuries by Nazir Ahmad accused (Proclaimed Offender) and Mst. Begum (P.W.4) had received her injuries at the hands of Muhammad Younas, the acquitted accused. The role attributed to the present appellant was that he had fired a shot at Muhammad Akbar complainant which had not hit him. The motive set up in the F.I.R. Was that the parties to this case were locked in criminal litigation and it was in that backdrop that Muhammad Anwar deceased had been done to death and Mst. Begum (P.W.4) had been given injuries. After completion of investigation a challan was submitted before the learned trial Court which framed a charge against the appellant and his co- accused namely Muhammad Younas to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. A co- accused of the appellant namely Nazir Ahmad had become a fugitive from law and he was declared a Proclaimed Offender. The case against him was separated by the learned trial Court.
After holding of a full-deceased trial the appellant's co-accused namely Muhammad Younas was acquitted by the learned trial Court whereas, after finding the prosecution's case against him to have proved beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gave gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been observed by me that admittedly the present appellant had not caused any injury to any person during the alleged incident and the only role attributed to him by the prosecution was that of indulging in ineffective firing. It is admitted at all hands that the present appellant is very closely related to his co-accused, including Nazir Ahmad (Proclaimed Offender) who happens to be his real brother. Previous litigation between the parties has been admitted by both the parties. It is not disputed that nothing had been recovered from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case so as to lend corroboration to the ocular account regarding indulging in ineffective firing by the appellant. The appellant was not directly involved in the criminal case set up by the prosecution as the motive. The medical evidence was inconsequential vis:a-vis the resent appellant because admittedly the appellants had not caused any injury to any person. In the peculiar circumstances of this case I have felt that a possibility cannot safely be ruled out regarding spreading the net wide by the complainant party so as to entangle the appellant in the present case and false implication of the appellant has emerged as a real possibility if the peculiar background of strained relations between the parties is kept in view.
In this view of the matter I have found that the prosecution had remained unable to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to be acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt to him. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The appellant has already been admitted to bail by this Court after suspending his sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of this appeal. His bail bond and surety shall stand discharged.