MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus STATE , Nemo

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: ‑‑This order will dispose of two appeals by the convicts bearing Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1990 and Criminal Appeal No.81 of 1991 as well as Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.49 of 1990 by the complainant.

1. Relevant facts are that Muhammad Ibrahim, his three sons, namely Liaquat Ali, Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Akram as well as two others i.e. Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Ghani were tried under section 148/302/149/307/149, P.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara who vide judgment dated 19‑5‑1987 acquitted them all. State filed Criminal Appeal No.604 of 1987 in the Lahore High Court. A learned Division Bench accepted the appeal against Muhammad Ibrahim and his three sons. Muhammad Ibrahim was convicted under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced to five years' R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000, in default six months' R.I. His two sons Liaquat Ali and Muhammad Akram were convicted under section 307, P.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' R.I. each and fine of Rs.2,000 in default six months' R.I. each. His third son Muhammad Sadiq was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000 in default to one year R.I. He was also ordered to pay as compensation Rs.10,000 to the heirs of the deceased Sharif under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C., in case of default to suffer further six months' R.I. The other two accused namely Muhammad Ashraf and Abdul Ghani were acquitted: This is vide order dated 13‑11‑1989. Convicts were granted leave to appeal vide order, dated 22‑5‑1991. The complainant also seeks leave to appeal against the said judgment. His petition is barred by 43 days. It is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay on the ground of illness but there is no certificate in support thereof.

2. The contentions of the learned counsel for the convicts are that it is long‑established law that an order of acquittal is not to be interfered with unless it is perverse or totally unreasonable. Reliance is placed on "Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others" PLD 1985 SC 11, "Yar Muhammad and 3 others v. The State" 1992 SCMR 96. It was submitted from a perusal of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the accused, it cannot be said that the reasons given there either do not flow from the evidence on record or there is any misreading. He secondly submitted that on the same evidence the two co‑accused of the appellants stand acquitted by the two Courts below. The same evidence could not be utilized against the appellants/convicts without corroboration and there is no evidence against them corroborating the testimony of the witnesses.

3. Learned counsel for the State and complainant were heard. They could not point out any misreading of evidence on record by the learned trial Court acquitting the accused.

4. In the impugned order it was found that "the eye‑witnesses are independent, disinterested and very natural..." There seems to be some misconception as out of the three eye‑witnesses namely Qudratullah P.W.1, Ghulam Oadir P.W.2 and Muhammad Akram P.W.3, the first two were the sons of the deceased and the third one is said to be their collateral though he denied any relationship, yet he was a chance witness. The plea in defence that the ladies of the accused were not allowed to use the field to satisfy the call of nature was not taken into account. The order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not liable to be interfered with in view of the established law of long standing, lastly reported in "Yar Muhammad and 3I others v. The State" 1992 SCMR 96.

5. In view of the above, the appeals of the convicts are allowed and, impugned judgment set aside. The order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is restored. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Resultantly, the complainant's petition fails and is dismissed.

N.H.Q./M‑1687/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.