' This judgment will dispose of Crl. Appeal No.1135 of 2003 directed against the judgment dated 29- 5-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby he convicted the appellant under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. On two counts with further direction to pay Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the each deceased or in default thereof to further undergo six month's S.-I.
2. Brief facts of the instant case as narrated in the F.I.R. By the complainant are that he along with his son Naveed Ahmad and brother Abdul Ghafoor was coming from Chak No.265-R.B. Towards his house. At about 5-.00 p.m. When he along with his companions reached near the road, they saw Khalid Saeed, his son and Javaid Iqbal Lahoria in car No.FDH-12, who were coming from Chak No.264-R.B. Towards their house. Shehzad was driving motorcycle and Iftikhar Ahmad armed with Kalashnikov was sitting behind him. They were chasing the car of Khalid Saeed, that they also followed them. Maalik son of Ibrahim empty handed, Zahid Mahmood son of Maalik armed with rifle and Intisar armed with 12 bore gun residents of Chak No.264-R.B. Were sitting in a' sugar-cane crop.
They came out and Maalik made a signal to Shehzad who speed up the motorcycle and reached near the car of Khalid Saeed whereupon Iftikhar Ahmad fired at Khalid Saeed by his Kalashnikov.
Khalid Saeed and Javaid Iqbal suffered injuries. The car struck with the earthen rock then Shehzad and Iftikhar got down from the motorcycle and reached near the car. Shehzad took his pistol and Iftikhar took his Kalashnikov and started firing at Khalid Saeed and Javaid Iqbal and caused their death. The occurrence was seen by them. The motive behind the present occurrence was a previous background of enmity.
3. After getting information about the occurrence the local police completed all the necessary formalities. Thereafter Khalid Mahmood, S.-I. Along with his subordinates proceeded to the spot. He prepared injury statement Exh.P.B. And inquest report Exh.P.C. Of Javaid Iqbal deceased. He also prepared injury statement Exh.P.E. And inquest report Exh.P.F. Of Khalid Saeed deceased. He secured the blood-stained earth vide memos. Exh.P.K. And Exh.P.J. Of both the deceased respectively. Last worn clothes of both the deceased were taken into custody vide memos. Exhs.P.H. And Exh.P.P. He arrested Maalik, Zahid Mahmood and Intisar accused. Thereafter investigation of the case was transferred to Muhammad Ayyub, S.-I./S.H.O., who after thorough investigation prepared the challan and sent the accused already arrested to the judicial lock-up on 12-12-2001. Iftikhar and Shehzad accused were not arrested and they were declared P.Os.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case. Has produced as many as 12 witnesses including eye- witnesses, Investigating Officers, Doctor and other formal and relevant witnesses. After tendering report of Serologist Exh.P.U. Learned A.D.A. Closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded their innocence and claimed trial. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the every aspect of the case and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that no over act was attributed to the appellant, that he was not armed with any weapon, that he did not cause any injury to the deceased, that the accused Zahid and Intisar who were armed with fire-arms have been acquitted by the learned trial Court, that the appellant was also found innocent by the police, that the alleged main accused Shehzad and Iftikhar are still proclaimed offenders and they are the accused who were attributed injuries to the deceased. He submits that there is long standing enmity between the parties.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that P.W.7 has specifically named the present appellant and that he is the person who made a signal to Shehzad and Iftikhar accused (P.Os.). He also submits that there is long standing enmity between the parties.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the State that there was long standing enmity between the parties. No injury caused to the deceased is attributed to the present appellant. He was not armed with any weapon, no recovery has been effected from him, two co-accused namely Zahid Mahmood and Iftikhar who were armed with fire-arms have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Even in the F.I.R. The motive is that there was murder cases between the complainant and Iftikhar and Shehzad etc. Accused persons. Appellant is also father of Zahid the acquitted co-accused. No overt act is attributed to him except giving a signal to his co-accused Shehzad and Iftikhar. In such-like cases where there is enmity Between the parties independent corroboration is necessary which is lacking in the instant case. On the same evidence Zahid and Intisar accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court.
8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence available on the record I am of the view that case against the appellant is of doubtful nature so while granting benefit of doubt this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is set aside. The appellant is on bail, he shall be discharged from his bail bonds. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.