' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.~ Abdul Ghaffar appellant was convicted for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 20-4-2000 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Pakpattan Sharif and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and pay a sum Rs,25,000 to the heirs Of Muhammad Anwar deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence before this Court through the present appeal.
2. According to the prosecution's case Muhammad Anwar deceased was done to death and Mst.
Begum (P.W.4) was given injuries in an incident taking place in Chak No,27/SP within the area of Police Station Chak Baidi, District Pakpattan Sharif at 6-00 p.m. On 8-11-1997. F.I.R. No,339 was lodged in respect of that incident by Muhammad Akbar complainant (P. W. 3) at 8-50 p.m. On 8-11- 1997 at Police Station Chak Baidi, District Pakpattan Sharif for an offence under section 302, P.P.C.
Read with section 34, P.P.C. According to the F.I.R. Muhammad Anwar deceased had been given injuries by Nazir Ahmad accused (Proclaimed Offender) and Mst. Begum (P.W.4) had received her injuries at the hands of Muhammad Younas, the acquitted accused. The role attributed to the present appellant was that he had fired a shot at Muhammad Akbar complainant which had not hit him. The motive set up in the F.I.R. Was that the parties to this case were locked in criminal litigation and it was in that backdrop that Muhammad Anwar deceased had been done to death and Mst. Begum (P.W.4) had been given injuries. After completion of investigation a challan was submitted before the learned trial Court which framed a charge against the appellant and his co- accused namely Muhammad Younas to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. A co- accused of the appellant namely Nazir Ahmad had become a fugitive from law and he was declared a Proclaimed Offender. The case against him was separated by the learned trial Court.
After holding of a full-deceased trial the appellant's co-accused namely Muhammad Younas was acquitted by the learned trial Court whereas, after finding the prosecution's case against him to have proved beyond reasonable doubt, the appellant was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gave gone through the record of this case with their assistance.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been observed by me that admittedly the present appellant had not caused any injury to any person during the alleged incident and the only role attributed to him by the prosecution was that of indulging in ineffective firing. It is admitted at all hands that the present appellant is very closely related to his co-accused, including Nazir Ahmad (Proclaimed Offender) who happens to be his real brother. Previous litigation between the parties has been admitted by both the parties. It is not disputed that nothing had been recovered from the appellant's possession during the investigation of this case so as to lend corroboration to the ocular account regarding indulging in ineffective firing by the appellant. The appellant was not directly involved in the criminal case set up by the prosecution as the motive. The medical evidence was inconsequential vis:a-vis the resent appellant because admittedly the appellants had not caused any injury to any person. In the peculiar circumstances of this case I have felt that a possibility cannot safely be ruled out regarding spreading the net wide by the complainant party so as to entangle the appellant in the present case and false implication of the appellant has emerged as a real possibility if the peculiar background of strained relations between the parties is kept in view.
In this view of the matter I have found that the prosecution had remained unable to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he is entitled to be acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt to him. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the learned trial Court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge. The appellant has already been admitted to bail by this Court after suspending his sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of this appeal. His bail bond and surety shall stand discharged.