MUHAMMAD NAWAZ alias MEEDU Versus State

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.--- Through this appeal under section 410, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu and Umer Hayat appellants have challenged their convictions and sentences passed against them through judgment dated 31.01.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara by virtue of which Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu was convicted under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C., as Ta'zir for committing murder of Sadi Ahmad deceased and he was sentenced to death. He was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 200,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased or in default of payment of compensation he was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Through the same judgment the learned trial court also convicted Umer Hayat appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. as Ta'zir for committing murder of Sadi Ahmad deceased and he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He was directed to pay an amount of Rs.100,000/- as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of Sadi Ahmad deceased or in default of payment of compensation he was ordered to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was further convicted for an offence under section 324, P.P.C. for attempting to commit Qatl-i-amd of Ghulam Hussain, injured victim and he was sentenced to undergo seven years imprisonment with fine of Rs.20,000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Both the appellants have challenged their convictions and sentences through the instant appeal whereas the complainant has also filed Criminal Revision No. 207 of 2012 for enhancing the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to Umar Hayat to the capital sentence of death. The learned trial court has also sent Reference under section 374, Cr.P.C. for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant which was numbered by the Office as Murder Reference No.112 of 2012. We propose to decide all these matters together through this consolidated judgment.

2. The prosecution's case unfolded in the private complaint (Ex.PA) instituted by Liaquat Ali, complainant (PW3) is that on 12.08.2009 at about 6.30 p.m. the complainant along with Sadi Ahmad and Master Ghulam Hussain was going from Gogera towards his village. When they reached near Basti Mustafa Abad Bangla Gogera, all of a sudden Umer Hayat, armed with pistol 30 bore, Ghulam Shabbir, armed with rifle, Liaquat, armed with rifle 222 and Azam, armed with pistol .30 bore reached there who were chasing them on motorcycle. The accused persons raised lalkara and Umer Hayat accused made fire-shot from his pistol .30 bore while riding on motorcycle on Master Ghulam Hussain which landed on back side of his right thigh and passed through inner side of the right thigh who due to firearm injury smeared with blood. Sadi Ahmad and the complainant raised speed of their motorcycles and they turn towards Rural Health Centre, Gogera from Paracha More, Bangla Gogera and when they passed near PSO, Gogera Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu, armed with Pump Action 12 bore, Zahid son of Hamid, armed with Pump Action .12 bore, Zahid son of Muhammad Iqbal, armed with Pump Action .12 bore and Ayub son of Naik, armed with Rifle 8 mm who were sitting in Suzuki car of white colour, they also chased them. The complainant and his companions took injured Ghulam Hussain to Rural Health Centre, Gogera and the doctor started his medical treatment. The complainant, Sadi Ahmad and Abbas were standing before the medical store in front of Gate of Hospital to bring medicine for Ghulam Hussain, in the meanwhile all the eight accused persons came there. Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu fired at Sadi Ahmad with his Pump Action 12 bore gun which landed on his head. Second fire made by Zahid son of Hamid with his Pump Action .12 bore too landed on the head of Sadi Ahmad. Third fire made by Zahid son of Muhammad Iqbal with Pump Action .12 bore which went near the head of Sadi Ahmad. Sadi Ahmad while smeared with blood and fell down on the ground at the spot whereas other accused persons, i.e. Ayub son of Naik, etc. made aerial firing at the spot and they forbade the people not to come near. Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu raised lalkara to the effect that he has taken revenge from his enemies on that day and all the accused persons fled away from the scene of crime while riding on motorcycles and car. Thereafter the complainant and his companions removed Sadi Ahmad to hospital who was in serious condition due to which the doctor referred him to District Headquarter Hospital, Okara but due to serious condition of Sadi Ahmad the doctor of District Headquarter Hospital, Okara referred him to General Hospital, Lahore. The complainant remained busy in looking after Sadi Ahmad at General Hospital, Lahore whereas Ghulam Hussain remained in Rural Health Centre, Gogera in injured condition. The motive set up by the prosecution in the private complainant is that there was a pitched enmity between Muhammad Nawaz and other accused persons with Sadi Ahmad and litigation in that regard was pending between the parties. Even prior to the instant occurrence Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu accused has lodged a criminal case against Sadi Ahmad and Ghulam Hussain, etc in respect of offences under sections 324/109/34, P.P.C. at Police Station Gogera in which pre-arrest bail of Sadi Ahmad and Ghulam Hussain was confirmed. One accused of that case namely Muhammad Nawaz son of Allah Yar was done to death by Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu. A criminal case regarding that occurrence was registered at Police Station Mamoon Kanjan, District Faisalabad against Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu.

On the application moved by the complainant FIR No. 392/09, dated 14.08.2009 was registered against accused persons at Police Station Gogera in respect of offences under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C. Sadi Ahmad succumbed to his injuries and died on 16.08.2009 in General Hospital, Lahore due to which section 302, P.P.C. was added to the FIR. It is stated in the private complaint that Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu was a big landlord of the locality and he was an influential person who has good terms with political big-wigs due to which the police have not conducted fair investigation rather in presence of all evidence against the accused persons, the police have not even arrested them and ruined the case of the complainant by extending favour to accused persons. It is stated that as the complainant was a poor person who could neither get changed the investigation nor he was rich enough to grease the palm of police whereas the local police joined hands in gloves with the accused persons by taking heavy illegal gratification so as to get outcome of investigations in their favour. By expecting foul play on the part of the police the complainant constrained to institute the instant private complaint.

3. To substantiate its version before the learned trial court, the prosecution produced as many as five witnesses during trial before the learned trial Court whereas the learned trial court examined 13 Court-Witnesses from CW-1 to CW-13. The defence has also produced Hafiz Qari Liaquat Ali as DW1 on behalf of the appellants. The ocular account has been furnished by Liaquat Ali, complainant (PW3) and Ghulam Hussain, injured victim (PW4). The investigation in this case has been conducted by CW-9 to CW-12 (four investigating officers) who all have stated before the learned trial court about various steps taken by them during the investigation of this case. The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Fayyaz Ahmad Qaiser (PW1), Dr. Shahid Imran (PW2) and Dr. Abdul Majid (PW5). Rest of the prosecution witnesses are more or less formal in nature.

4. The appellants in their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. professed their innocence and pleaded false implication in this case inasmuch as they have also raised plea of alibi to prove their innocence. They have not opted to get record their statements under section 340(2) Cr.P.C. in disproof of allegations levelled by the prosecution against them. However, they produced Hafiz Qari Liaquat Ali as DW1 before the learned trial court in their defence.

5. At the end of trial, after thrashing entire evidence and evaluating the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective versions, learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the appellants as mentioned in paragraph No.1 of this judgment.

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. The private complaint has been instituted by the complainant after making dishonest improvements which fact cast serious doubt in the story mentioned therein. Further submits that Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant was declared innocent during all the four investigations. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant submits that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants to the hilt by producing natural and trustworthy witness whose presence at the place of occurrence is natural. Opinion of the police/investigating officers have got no value in presence of confidence inspiring ocular account. The learned counsel for the complainant has gone on to State that the sentence of Umer Hayat appellant should be enhanced from life imprisonment to capital sentence of death.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, have given our anxious consideration to their arguments and have also minutely scanned the record with great care and caution.

8. Before proceeding further into the matter we would like to mention some peculiar features of this case to start our discussion into the matter. The occurrence has taken place in two segments in this case and in both segments the participants/accused persons were different inasmuch as the victims of both the segments are also different. In the first part of the occurrence it has been alleged by the complainant in the private complaint that when he along with Sadi Ahmad, Master Ghulam Hussain and Abbas were proceeding to his home on motorcycles, all of them were chased by Umer Hayat appellant, Ghulam Shabbir, Liaquat and Azam acquitted accused persons who too were riding motorcycles and Umer Hayat made fire shot with his pistol .30 bore which hit Master Ghulam Hussain on backside of his right thigh and the same exited from inner side. On the other hand in second part of the occurrence it is alleged by the complainant that he along with Sadi Ahmad and Abbas were standing on a medical store to purchase medicine for Master Ghulam Hussain, injured victim in front of Rural Health Centre four accused along with Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant, Zahid son of Hamid, Zahid son of Muhammad Iqbal and Ayub who were chasing them in Suzuki car came there and in that segment Sadi Ahmad was fired upon by Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant, Zahid son of Hamid and Zahid son of Muhammad Iqbal, in consequence thereof Sadi Ahmad died after receiving firearm injuries on his head at General Hospital, Lahore. As both the appellants have been attributed firearms injuries to two different victims, Ghulam Hussain (PW4) and Sadi Ahmad deceased in two different segments as well as in two different places, therefore, we have decided to discuss the case of both the appellants separately.

9. First, we would like to discuss the case of Umer Hayat appellant who in the first segment of occurrence, as stated above, made fire-shot from his pistol .30 bore at Master Umer Hayat which landed on backside of his right thigh and exited from inner side of the thigh. To prove the allegation leveled against Umer Hayat appellant the prosecution keeps in its fold two eye-witnesses, i.e. Liaquat Ali, complainant (PW3) and Ghulam Hussain, injured victim (PW4). We may observe here that it was a broad daylight occurrence wherein Umer Hayat appellant was duly named in the FIR as well as in the private complaint wherein specific roles of making fire-shot with pistol .30 bore at Ghulam Hussain, injured victim (PW4) has been attributed to him. Admittedly during investigation of this case he has been found involved in this case and later on the complainant has also named him in the private complaint with the same role of making firing at the injured victim (PW4). Although the defence has narrated presence of Umer Hayat appellant in a different manner yet the fact remains that during occurrence he has also received injuries on his person and his Medico-Legal Report is available as Ex. DC which proved his presence and participation in the occurrence. Both the eye-witnesses mentioned above, i.e. Liaquat Ali, complainant (PW3) and Ghulam Hussain, injured victim (PW4) while appearing before the learned trial court had explained time, date, place of occurrence, specification of weapon of offence inasmuch as each and every segment of first part of the occurrence in a straightforward and clear-cut manner during their statements. They have unambiguously stated the role attributed to Umer Hayat appellant in so many words in addition to that they had also explained the mode and manner of taking place the occurrence. Although they had to endure a lengthy cross-examination by the defence wherein the learned counsel for the defence had asked multiple questions to shatter their credibility yet both of them remained consistence on all material points and remained stick to the involvement and culpability of Umer Hayat appellant in this case. During their evidence they had sufficiently proved their presence at the place of occurrence at relevant time and witnessing the occurrence vis-a-vis identifying Umer Hayat appellant at the spot.

10. Apart from what has been discussed above, we have also observed that being residents of the same locality and existence of pitched enmity the parties to this case are known to each other so there is no chance of mistaken identity of Umer Hayat appellant in this case. Admittedly, the complainant Liaquat Ali, (PW3) was brother-in-law of the deceased whereas Ghulam Hussain, injured victim (PW4) was also from their group so being close kith and kin of the deceased they would not allow the real culprit to go scot-free and substitute Umer Hayat appellant with an innocent person. It is now well settled principle of law that the fact of relationship of the witnesses with the complainant or with the deceased would not be sufficient to smash the evidence adduced by such witnesses. Such PWs can be believed if intrinsic worth of their testimony inspires confidence of the court and the same leads to an inference that the witnesses were present at the scene of the crime at relevant time and contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that all the eye-witnesses are related and chance witnesses has got no force. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ahmad and another v. The State and others (1997 SCMR 89). Even otherwise the rule requiring independent corroboration of testimony of interested witnesses is a rule of prudence which is not to be applied rigidly in each case. There can be cases like the present one where implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of an interested witness if it otherwise inspiring confidence of the Court. Even otherwise taking place of first part of occurrence is not even denied by the defence, so the eye-witness account furnished by natural witnesses to the extent of culpability of Umer Hayat appellant sufficiently gain our confidence to be believed upon them. Similarly learned counsel for the appellants has vociferously argued that on the same set of evidence four co-accused of the appellant, i.e. Azam, Muhammad Ayub, Ghulam Shabbir and Liaquat Ali have already been acquitted by the learned trial court so the same evidence to the extent of Umer Hayat appellant should also be disbelieved. In this context we may observe here that the principal of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not application in stricto sensu in this country and the court has to sift the grain from the chaff. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Raheel alias Shafique v. The State (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 145) held as under:-

"It may be true that five co-accused of the appellant had been acquitted by the learned trial court and their acquittal had subsequently been upheld by the High Court but at the same time it is equally true that the said acquitted co-accused has not been attributed any injury to any of the deceased and their roles alleged by the prosecution were merely secondary in nature. The prosecution had not been able to produce sufficient or convincing evidence before the learned trial court regarding the roles attributed to those accused persons and, thus, their acquittal may not be itself be sufficient to cast a cloud of doubt upon the veracity of the prosecution's case against the appellant who was attributed the fatal injuries to both the deceased. Apart from that the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in this country on account of various judgments rendered by this Court in the past and for this reason too acquittal of the five co-accused of the appellant has not been found by us to be having any hearing upon the case against the appellant."

11. Another important fact in this case is that one of the eye-witnesses, i.e. Ghulam Hussain in the first segment of the occurrence, during murderous assault upon the complainant party, has received injuries at the hands of Umer Hayat appellant so token of receipt of injury on his person itself proves his presence at the place of occurrence at relevant time. He has categorically pointed accusing fingers towards Umer Hayat appellant as the assailant who had fired with his pistol .30 bore at him. So the ocular account in this case has been furnished by injured victim and his testimony to the extent of first segment of course does not leave any possibility of false implication of Umer Hayat appellant in this case. Thus, his evidence cannot be disbelieved by us. The minor discrepancies, highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant in the statements of the eye-witnesses, is a result of passage of time between the occurrence and statements recorded before the learned trial court by the eye-witnesses.

12. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellants has highlighted the defence version which has been brought on record by Hafiz Qari Liaquat Ali while appearing before the learned trial court as DW1 and stated that as a matter of fact Umer Hayat appellant was sitting at the shop of Hafiz Qari Liaquat Ali (DW1) along with Amjid when he was attached by Ghulam Hussain and Sadi Ahmad who was armed with pistol and gave butt blows of his pistol on the head of Umer Hayat who fell down on the ground and Muhammad Amjid in self defence of his uncle Umer Hayat fired and in cross firing Ghulam Hussain and Sadi Ahmad were injured. We, however, visited his statement with great care and caution and found that admittedly he was not present at the scene of crime at relevant time rather what has been deposed by him before the learned trial court to the extent of Umer Hayat appellant was based on hearsay evidence and the information provided to him by Umer Hayat appellant. So his deposition to such an extent cannot be believed. We have also observed that if the defence plea is correct, for the sake of arguments, then why Umer Hayat kept mum and not reported the matter to the police or moved application to higher hierarchy of police in case of non-registering the case. To substantiate its version the defence has only produced Medico-legal Certificate (Ex. DC) of Umer Hayat appellant the contents of which has not been verified by the doctor who alleged to have medically examined him. Thus, if the stances of both the parties put in juxtaposition the plea/stance taken by the prosecution against Umer Hayat appellant seems us to be plausible enough to be believed upon it especially in the circumstances when Umer Hayat appellant did not opt to appear as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Thus, the plea taken by the defence in this case is not proved by the evidence available on record.

13. The medical evidence in this case has been furnished by Dr. Fayyaz Ahmad Qaiser, Senior Medical Officer, Rural Health Centre, Gogera, District Okara (PW1) who has medically examined Ghulam Hussain, injured victim and found sole firearm injury on his right thigh. This injury, attributed to Umer Hayat appellant has also been borne out from his Medico-legal Certificate (Ex. PA) of Ghulam Hussain, injured victim (PW4). The doctor has categorically stated that he has found corresponding holes on shalwar and kameez of Ghulam Hussain, injured victim at the time of his medical examination the clothes of injured were smeared with blood. He while appearing before the learned trial court has sufficiently explained time, date, seat of injury and weapons used for causing injury to injured victim. We have no manner of doubt in our mind to observe that the medical evidence in this case qua culpability of Umer Hayat appellant is absolutely in line with the ocular account and the same provides full support to the ocular account in this case with regard to culpability of Umer Hayat appellant.

14. So far as the recovery of weapons of offence, i.e. pistol .30 bore from Umer Hayat appellant is concerned we have observed that as the police has not conducted fair and impartial investigation in this case, therefore, during investigation conducted by as many as four investigating officers neither they have arrested Umer Hayat appellant during investigation nor they have recovered any firearm from him. Thus, nothing has been recovered from Umer Hayat appellant to corroborate the ocular account.

15. For what has been discussed above the prosecution has proved its case against Umer Hayat appellant beyond any reasonable doubt through confidence inspiring evidence in shape of ocular account and supported by medical evidence. However, at the same time, we have observed some peculiar features of this case and we are of the view that the quantum of sentence awarded by the learned trial court to Umer Hayat appellant is not in apt with the evidence and circumstances of this case. As stated above Umer Hayat appellant has taken part in first segment of the occurrence and caused firearm injury to Ghulam Hussain, injured victim (PW4). Admittedly in the second part of segment, although, his presence at the spot has been shown in generalized manner yet it is not expected that an accused who has caused firearm injury in first part of occurrence took participation in second part of occurrence and remained silent spectator at the spot. His presence at the second segment of occurrence is doubtful especially when during second segment Ghulam Hussain, injured victim (PW4) who was not present at the spot as he had already been admitted in the hospital when second segment of occurrence had taken place. Therefore, it cannot safely be concluded that Umer Hayat has shared common intention in committing the murder of Sadi Ahmad deceased in second part of occurrence. So, in the backdrop of above mentioned circumstances the conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. awarded to Umer Hayat appellant by the learned trial court and his sentence to undergo life imprisonment seems us to be contrary to the fact and circumstances of this case inasmuch as appreciation of evidence. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of Umer Hayat appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. read with section 34, P.P.C. and sentence passed against him to undergo life imprisonment as well as compensation amounting to Rs. 100,000/- is hereby set aside. However, his conviction under section 324, P.P.C. for causing injury with an intention and knowledge to commit murder of Ghulam Hussain, injured victim (PW4) and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years along with fine of Rs. 20,000/-is hereby upheld and maintained. In addition to sentence passed against Umer Hayat appellant under section 324, P.P.C. he is also convicted for an offence under section 337-F(iii), P.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with Daman amounting to Rs. 20,000/-. He is ordered to be kept in jail till realization of amount of Daman. Both the sentences passed against Umer Hayat appellant shall run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. is extended in his favour. Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2012 is hereby dismissed to the extent of Umer Hayat appellant with the modification made in his sentence. Umar Hayat appellant is present in person before this Court on bail, he shall be taken into custody to serve out his remaining sentence. The Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the learned trial court to execute remaining sentence upon Umer Hayat appellant and get him lodged in jail so as to serve out his remaining sentence. Thereafter the bail bond shall be released and surety shall stand discharged from his liability.

16. Now adverting to the case of Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant. According to the prosecution case narrated in the FIR as well as in the private complaint, admittedly he had not participated in first segment of occurrence but in the second segment of occurrence he had allegedly made fire-shot with his Pump Action .12 bore gun which landed on the head of Sadi Ahmad deceased who was standing at a medical store in front of Hospital with Liaquat Ali, complainant (PW3) and one Abbas (not produced as witness). Admittedly co-accused of Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant namely Zahid son of Hamid (since Proclaimed Offender) also made fire-shot from his Pump Action Gun .12 bore which too landed on the head of Sadi Ahmad deceased. In this way the prosecution has attributed two fire-shot which the deceased had sustained on his head, one is attributed to Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant and the other is attributed to Zahid son of Hamid (since Proclaimed Offender). Admittedly according to the contents of FIR third fire shown to have hit the head of deceased is attributed to Zafar so of Muhammad Iqbal but while filing private complaint to the extent of hitting the head of deceased has been substituted by passing near the head. Both the above mentioned culprits have shown to have been armed with Pump Action 12 bore gun. So, in this eventuality we would confine our observations to the extent of role played by Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant.

17. To prove the case against Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant the prosecution keeps in its fold only one eye-witness, i.e. Liaquat Ali, complainant (PW1) and admittedly second eye-witness namely Abbas has not been produced by the prosecution to prove the second part of occurrence. The learned trial court has awarded death penalty to Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant on the basis of sole statement of the complainant. During the course of trial to disprove the case against Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant the defence has taken plea of alibi and to substantiate plea of alibi the defence has not only examined Hafiz Qari Liaquat Ali (DW1) before the learned trial court but has also produced Copy of Nikah Nama (Ex. DD) of one Zawar Ahmad to prove the presence of appellant in the marriage ceremony at the time of occurrence at a place which is 60 kilometers away from the scene of crime. A perusal of above mentioned Nikah Nama shows that Qari Liaquat Ali (DW1) was witness of marriage. Thus the plea of alibi advanced by Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant had been supported by oral as well as documentary evidence. If this is not enough, as stated above, as many as four investigations have been conducted in this case by four different investigating officers and in all four successive investigations the plea of alibi of Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant had been accepted and he had been declared innocent in this case by the police. Qari Liaquat Ali (DWI) while appearing before the learned trial court has categorically stated that he along with Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant had gone in Barat of Zawar Ahmad towards Chak No. 545/GB (sixty kilometers away from Gogera) in his car bearing registration No. FDU-592. Nasir Ahmad, Inspector (CW10) has found the plea of alibi advanced by Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu to be correct on the basis of statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. got recorded to him by Shahzad Afaza, Zahoor Ahmad, Muhammad Shafique, Adnan Hussain, Anwar Shah, Iftikhar Ahmed, Abdul Haq, Ghulam Muhammad, Zulfiqar Ali and Sarfraz. Even according to Muhammad Akram, ASI/investigating officer (CW12) father of Zawar Hussain Bridegroom also supported the version of Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu. Thus, in view of above narrated facts and circumstances the plea of alibi advanced by Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant is proved during investigation of this case.

18. Apart from plea of alibi, it has also become available in evidence that Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant had himself approached the police after the occurrence and had not avoid his arrest whereas one Zahid son of Hamid co-accused of Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant who had also been attributed fire-shot of .12 bore gun Pump Action on the head of deceased had absconded and had been declared Proclaimed Offender. The conduct showed by Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant by appearing before the police after the occurrence plausibly explained his innocence in this case otherwise it cannot be expected from an accused that soon after the occurrence he will appear before the police officer allegedly committing murder of deceased Sadi Ahmad.

19. According to scale site-plan (Ex.CW2/A) at point 'A' Sadi Ahmad deceased was standing along with his companions whereas accused persons have been shown to be standing at point 'B' and the distance between point 'A' and point 'B' is twelve feet. According to the prosecution's own case Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant was armed with Pump Action .12 bore gun and his companions Zahid son of Hamid and Zahid son of Muhammad Iqbal were also armed with Pump Action .12 bore gun and they jointly made firing at Sadi Ahmad deceased and fire-shots of all the three above mentioned accused hit the deceased on his head. We may observe here that the pellets started to scatter after a distance of three feet and if this particular aspect is considered with the touch stone of medical evidence where while appearing as PW-2, Dr. Shahid Imran has stated as under:-

"No track is mentioned by me in injury Nos. 2 and 3 in post mortem report. Injury Nos. 2 and 3 on the person of deceased were made from a far distance therefore both the injuries could be result of stray pellet made by one fire."

Taking into consideration the above mentioned facts it can safely be concluded that the deceased received injury at his head by single accused.

20. It is admitted by both the parties during trial the occurrence in this case is result of pitched enmity between the parties as they were interlocked into litigation prior to taking place of occurrence. Law is quite settled on the point that motive is a double edged weapon and it can cut both sides, if at one hand it can be a reason for committing murder of Sadi Ahmad then on the other hand it can also be a reason for false implication of Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant. Initially Liaquat Ali, complainant (PW3) has involved three persons for three injuries sustained by the deceased on his head in second segment of occurrence but later on after Post mortem Examination Report the doctor has declared that injury is a result of blunt weapon which has been attributed to Zahid son of Muhammad Iqbal, therefore, to fill up this lacunae the complainant in private complaint deviated from his earlier version and states that fire-shot of Zahid son of Muhammad Iqbal passed near the head of deceased which clearly shows that he has improved upon his previous statement in order to bring his statement in line with the medical evidence. An overwhelming analysis of evidence adduced by the parties in this case leads us to conclude that the complainant has falsely attribute head injury to Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant in the background of pitched enmity which clearly shows that the delay of two days in reporting the matter has been utilized by him in order to consult and deliberate the matter to involve maximum persons from accused side, including Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant otherwise he was not present at the scene of crime at relevant time. There is yet another factor in this case which shows that the matter has been reported to the police after consultations because the injured Ghulam Hussain (PW4) was available and why he has not reported the matter to the police speaks volume of false implication of Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant in this case. To conclude our discussion we can safely held that the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses regarding culpability of Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant is meager enough to prove his guilt to the hilt. It is settled law that not many circumstances creating doubt in the prosecution story are required to acquit an accused rather a single circumstance creating doubt in the prosecution story is enough to extend benefit of same to the accused not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. It is also golden principle of Islamic jurisprudence that it is better to acquit ten guilty persons than to convict a single innocent person. We would once again refer the case of Muhammad Raheel alias Shafique v. The State (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 145) to observe here that the case of prosecution against Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant is not proved. So by extending the benefit of doubt to Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellants we acquit him of the charge. Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2012 is, therefore, allowed to the extent of Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant. He shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with some other criminal case.

21. In sequel to our discussion made above Criminal Revision No.207 of 2012 filed by Liaquat Ali, complainant (PW3) for enhancing the sentence of Umer Hayat appellant from life imprisonment to capital sentence of death is hereby dismissed.

22. Murder Reference No. 112 of 2012 is answered in the negative and the sentence of death passed against Muhammad Nawaz alias Meedu appellant is not confirmed.

WA/M-175/L Order accordingly.