UMAR FAROOQ vs STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Umar Farooq, who was convicted by the trial court under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for his alleged involvement in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the appellant's guilt through common intention, given that no specific injury was attributed to him and his co-accused, who faced similar allegations, were acquitted on the same evidence. The High Court, upon re-appraisal of the ocular evidence, found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the trial court's finding regarding the appellant's facilitation of the main accused was not supported by the evidence, particularly when co-accused with identical roles were acquitted. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, and discharged his bail bonds. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where evidence against an accused is identical to that of acquitted co-accused, conviction cannot be sustained.
- Can an accused be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when co-accused with identical roles have been acquitted on the same evidence?
- Does the absence of an attributed injury to an accused preclude a conviction for murder if common intention is alleged?
- Is the benefit of doubt applicable when the prosecution fails to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt despite the presence of an ocular account?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 73, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Umar Farooq convict has challenged his conviction and sentence through this Criminal Appeal No. 04 of 2004. He was tried alongwith co-accused Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Alyas by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alipur District Muzaffargarh in case F.I.R. No. 389/2000 dated 24.12.2000 registered under Sections 302, 148, 149, PPC at Police Station City A.I Pur.
2. On conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted vide judgment dated 24.06.2003 and sentenced as under:- Convicted U/S 302(b), PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He was held liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation in terms of Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of deceased. In default, to further undergo six months imprisonment.
Both the co-accused were acquitted of the charge.
3. FIR was got registered by Muhammad Tayyab. Prosecution story as narrated in the FIR is that on 24.12.2000 at about 11:30 A.M., complainant, his brothers Muhammad Tahir and Muhammad Shahid alongwith A amir Raees were coming to Alipur in a car from Jatoi. Car was being driven by Muhammad Shahid. Complainant alongwith his brother Muhammad Tahir were sitting on rear seat. When they reached near Kazmi hospital, all of sudden Abdul Majeed, Numan Majeed, Umar Farooq armed with pistols, Abdul Salam alias Babloo armed with .12-bore pistol and Muhammad Alyas armed with pistol emerged in front of car, on which car was stopped by driver. Abdul Salem alias Babloo fired with .12-bore pistol which hit Muhammad Tahir on his left cheek. Muhammad Shahid then drove the vehicle speedily. Accused persons made firing but no further fire shot hit anybody. Muhammad Tahir was taken to hospital in injured condition but he succumbed to the injury. Motive as alleged in the FIR is family dispute.
4. After registration of FIR, case was investigated. Report under Section 73, Cr.P.C. Was submitted before trial Court where appellant alongwith co-accused were charge sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter prosecution evidence was recorded. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he again pleaded innocence. At conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above, hence this criminal appeal.
5. Learned counsel for appellant contended that no injury to the deceased was attributed to present appellant; that main role was attributed to accused Abdul Salam (since P.0) and that on the same evidence-accused Abdul Majeed and Muhammad Alyas were acquitted by learned trial Court, as such appellant was also entitled to acquittal
6. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for complainant argued that prosecution has fully proved charge against appellant; that he though not attributed main role, was guilty of offence as he shared common intention with co-accused, as such he was rightly convicted and sentenced.
7. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with due care.
8. Ocular account in this case was furnished by Complainant (PW-1) and Aamir Raees (PW-2).
According to prosecution witnesses Tahir Mahmood (deceased) alongwith complainant and Aamir Ra.Ees (PW-2) was travelling in a car towards Alipur from Jatoi when accused came in front of car. Tahir (deceased) was sitting on rear seat towards left. According to prosecution witnesses Abdul Salam (since P.O.) came close to Tahir and fired at him and the shot hit on his left cheek. The driver then sped away the car. No active role was attributed to the present appellant. Regarding present appellant learned trial Court observed that he facilitated the main accused Abdul Salam (since P.O.) and for that reason he was liable to be punished under Section 302 read with Section 34, PPC as he shared common intention with the main accused. Two co-accused who were attributed similar role, were acquitted by the trial Court on the same evidence. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, evidence led by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove charge against present appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
9. On re-appraisal of evidence, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution had miserably failed to prove charge against the B appellant. Findings recorded by learned trial Court were not in line with the facts established on record. Resultantly, Criminal Appeal in 'hand is hereby allowed and appellant Umar Farooq is acquitted of the charge by extending, to him benefit of doubt. His surety stands discharged of the liability of bail bonds.