' This judgment shall dispose of Crl.A No,1215 of 2004 (Muhammad Riaz v. The State), Crl. A. No,1341 of 2004 (Javed. Iqbal v. The State) and Crl. Appeal No,1258 of 2004 (Abdul Waheed v. The State) as all the three appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment dated 14-7-2004 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Okara whereby the appellants in all the above appeals were convicted under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years R.I. Each with a Daman of Rs,10,000 each with a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs,10,000 each under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
To the complainant.
2. The prosecution story, as unfolded by the complainant through F.I.R. Briefly stated is that he was working as Traffic Staff in Okara; that on 6-7-2000 when he was leaving towards his village after performing his duty on his Motorcycle No,159-VR and when he reached near Akhtarabad Chak No,7/1-A-L, two/three unknown persons, who were wearing Shalwar Qameez, whom he could identify after having seen them and who were armed with fire-arms, stopped him; that on realizing the situation, he fired upon them with his licensed pistol which went amiss and the fire of the accused hit him on his belly; that Nazir son of Fateh Muhammad along with his brother, were coming after the complainant, on their hue and cry, the accused slipped from the spot; that the complainant was taken to hospital where he was medically examined and got recorded his statement. Hence the F.I.R.
3. After having completed the investigation and other legal requirements, challan was submitted against the accused persons and they were tried by the learned trial Court, where, to prove its case, the prosecution produced four witnesses.
4. The accused when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case and their involvement in the present case was attributed to false implication.
5. While addressing arguments in support of all the above three appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Okara, at first, learned counsel for appellant Mr. M. Akram Qureshi, Advocate started his arguments to submit that the injured of this case, namely, Mansha complainant had identified only Javed Iqbal during the Test Identification Parade; that while appearing before the learned trial Court and having entered the witness box, he named all the three appellants, therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon; that while appearing before the learned trial Court he did not name who caused him injury; that no recovery was effected from the any of the appellants; that S.-I. Abdul Majid was not produced during the trial; that in the site plan (not exhibited) the occurrence has been shown to be taken place in the sugarcane field; that Riaz and Nazir P.Ws. Have been declared hostile as they did not support the prosecution case and that reasonable doubts did exist about the involvement of the appellants in the case benefit of which must go to them by way of their clear acquittal from the case.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in the remaining two appeals have entered appearance and submitted one by one that after having adopted the submissions made by Mr. Muhammad Akram Qureshi, Advocate they would also pray for acquittal of the appellants as no case was made out against them.
7. Learned State counsel, while opposing the submissions made in all the three appeals, submits that the complainant had categorically named all the appellants before the learned trial Court; that there is no enmity between the parties on the record which could lead an inference that they have falsely been involved in this case but admits that the victim had not stated at any stage as to *hose fire hit him. He lastly submitted that the appellants have not given any reason for their false implication in the case.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record and have also given anxious consideration to their respective submissions made at the bar.
9. According to the F.I.R. Nobody was named in the F.I.R. There are three A witnesses of the case including the complainant who is also injured witness. During the identification Parade conducted by the learned Magistrate on 2-2-2001, the complainant identified Javed Iqbal. Nazir Ahmad identified Riaz and Abdul Waheed while Riaz identified only Abdul Waheed appellant. During trial Nazir did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile while Riaz was not produced.
So far as Mansha complainant is concerned his case is full of contradictions because during trial he identified all the three appellants which was totally incorrect while according to the proceedings of the learned Magistrate, who held the Identification Parade, he identified only Javed Iqbal. Moreso that he did not tell before the learned trial Court that who fired at him. No recovery from any of the appellants was recovered during investigation. The S.-I. Who had investigated the case and recorded the statement of the complainant was also not produced during trial. The occurrence had taken place at 9-45 p.m. On 6-7-2000. It was a time when darkness prevailed and it was hardly possible for the complainant to identify the actual culprits. False implication of the appellants in the present case cannot be ruled out when the complainant, who is a star witness of the case, has come forward with contradictory versions.
10. Having adjudged the case from every angle, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond a shadow of doubt.
Resultantly, all the three appeals i.e, Crl. A. No,1215 of 2004 (Muhammad Riaz v. The State), Crl. A.
No,1341 of 2004 (Javed Iqbal v. The State) and Crl. A. No,1258 of 2004 (Abdul Waheed v. The State) are allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction recorded against the appellants dated 14-7- 2004 passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30, Okara is set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the case. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.