' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.--- Appellants Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Mansha along with five other co-accused were tried by Judge, Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat for the murder of Muhammad Aslam and Allah Ditta in case F.I.R. No,1184 dated 19-12-1997 for the offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Gujrat, who vide judgment, dated 20-12-2000 while acquitting co-accused convicted appellants Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Mansha under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced them imprisonment for life on two counts. They were also directed to pay Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) each to both the legal heirs of the deceased each, or in default whereof the same was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Appellant Abdul Ghafoor was convicted under section 302 read with section 109, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life on two counts along with compensation of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac), or in default whereof the same was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended in favor of the appellants.
' Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellants have filed the instant appeal.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 19-12-1997 at about 4-00 p.m., complainant along with Muhammad Imtiaz was going to Dera of Muhammad Ajmal for taking price of fodder from him. When they reached near brick kiln of Ghulam Haider, they found that Allah Ditta and Muhammad Aslam (both deceased) who were real sons of real sister of wife of the complainant were cutting fodder in their field. Meanwhile, a car came on the road in which Ijaz (P.O.), Muhammad Afzal son of Ahmed Din armed with .222 bore rifle, Muhammad Manzoor son of Khushi Muhammad, Muhammad Ashraf son of Ahmed Din armed with .7 mm rifle and Muhammad Hussain son of Khushi Muhammad armed with .12 bore were boarding in that car. Said five accused came out from the car along with their weapons and started raising Lalkara that teach .a. Lesson to Allah Ditta and Muhammad Aslam for taking land. Ijaz and Afzal started firing with their rifles on Allah Ditta and Muhammad Aslam which hit on the chest and abdomen of the said deceased.
Then, Muhammad Manzoor and Muhammad Ashraf fired with their rifles and Muhammad Aslam fired with his gun on the said two deceased. Both the deceased fell on the ground and succumbed to the injuries. Statedly the occurrence took place on the conspiracy of Abdul Ghafoor and Shahbaz, as Abdul Ghafoor etc. Were on civil litigation about the land where occurrence took place, with the accused party since long and civil suit was ultimately decided finally in favor of the complainant party and the possession was also taken by them. So accused in furtherance of their common object have committed offence of murder of Muhammad Aslam and Allah Ditta.
' As it is apparent from the record, after the registration of case on the same day statement of Muhammad Imran under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was brought on record and on the basis of the same Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Mansha were also involved and later on arrested in this case.
3. The formal investigation of this case was conducted by Liaquat Ali Goraya, Inspector P.W.14, who after complying with the legal formalities finally submitted challan before the trial Court where prosecution produced fourteen witnesses including Muhammad Manzoor (P.W.1) and Imran (P.W.2) eye-witnesses of the occurrence to prove the charge against the appellants and their co-accused.
' Trial Court also examined appellants and their co-accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. All the appellants while denying the charges pleaded innocence.
' None of the appellants made any statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor produced any evidence in their defence.
' Trial Court after appraisal of evidence vide judgment, dated 20-12-2000 convicted and sentenced the appellants as narrated earlier. Hence this appeal.
4. With the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have minutely gone through the record of this case.
' Co-accused of the appellants namely Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Hussain and Muhammad Manzoor on the basis of compromise and Shahbaz son of Abdul Ghafoor while disbelieving the prosecution case, have already been acquitted by the trial Court.
' While lodging the F.I.R. Manzoor P.W.1 did not name appellants Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Mansha but later on they were involved in this case on the basis of statement of Muhammad Imran P.W.2 made under section 161, Cr.P.C. The trial Court has already discarded the evidence of Muhammad Manzoor (P.W.1). As far Imran P.W.2 is concerned statedly he is son of Allah Ditta deceased, he along with Haji Nasar Ullah was going towards his agricultural land and when they reached near the brick kiln of Ghulam Haider, this occurrence took place. According to prosecution case the statement of Imran (P.W.2) was recorded on the same day at the spot. In this statement he had named Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Mansha appellants with the specific role that both the appellants had also fired at the deceased persons. It is interesting to note that the inquest reports which were prepared by the Investigating Officer at the spot are absolutely silent about the involvement of the appellants. Similarly the name of Imran (P.W.2) does not find mentioned in the memos. About the recovery from the spot whereas the complainant of this case (Muhammad Manzoor P.W.2) has been shown as a recovery witness. Had Imran (P.W.2) been present at the spot he being the son of Allah Ditta should have been made a recovery witness. Though during the investigation fire-arms were recovered from both the appellants but there is no report on the record to show that these weapons were the same weapons which were used during the occurrence. The motive for the occurrence is also not attributable to any of the appellant.
' As far Abdul Ghafoor appellant is concerned, statedly he along with his son Shehbaz had hatched conspiracy for the commission of this offence and in support of its case prosecution has relied upon the statement of Munawar Hussain P.W.3. The name of this witness does not find mention in the F.I.R. Similarly this witness has already been disbelieved by the trial Court while acquitting Shahbaz co-accused. In this view of the matter, the sole statement of this witness in the absence of any corroborative/supporting evidence cannot be relied upon qua Abdul Ghafoor appellant.
' In the said backdrop of the case, appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellants are set aside and they stand acquitted from the charge. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other criminal case.