' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Appellant Jaffar Hussain, through the instant appeal has challenged the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 4 recorded by Syed Ali Hassan Rizvi, learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif in case F.I.R. No,370/92, under sections 302/109/34, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Sadar Pakpattan Sharif, vide his judgment dated 30-10-1994.
2. It may be mentioned here that the same was dismissed to the extent of respondents Nos.2 to 4 vide the order, dated 27-6-2001 recorded by the learned Division Bench comprising of one of us (Khawaja Muhammad Sharif) and Riaz Kayani, J as he then was.
3. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that present respondent No,1 and four others namely Ahmad Yar, Muhammad Ameer, Muhammad Yar and Wazir Ali were tried under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C. For committing the Qatl-e-Amd of the deceased Muhammad Mansha in furtherance of their common intention and on the instigation and the abetment of Mst. Zainab Bibi, Sufi Muhammad Yar and Wazir Ali, Dakhli Chak No,20/SP falling within the jurisdiction of the aforesaid police station.
4. Syed Ali Hassan Rizvi, learned Addl. Sessions Judge found only accused Ahmad Yar to be the guilty of the murder of the deceased and so convicted him under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death and to pay compensation Rs,50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof to further suffer two years' R.I. Vide his judgment, dated 30-10-1994. He however, has acquitted respondents Nos.1 to 4 while applying the rule of abundant precaution.
5. The appellant, who is complainant in the case feeling himself aggrieved of the acquittal of respondents Nos.1 to 4 brought the same under attack by way of the instant appeal.
6. As said above that, this appeal was dismissed to the extent of respondents Nos.2 to 4. The case only of respondent No,1 is to be examined.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there was sufficient evidence on the record against him but the learned trial Court has erroneously acquitted him of the charge giving him the benefit of doubt.
8. As against the same, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 has supported the impugned judgment to his extent.
9. The learned counsel for the State/ respondent No,5 has urged nothing in the matter.
10. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the parties and gone through the record carefully.
11. The learned trial Court while acquitting respondent No,1 has observed that no weapon of offence was recovered from him, while he allegedly was armed with `Churra' at the relevant time.
12. It has also been influenced by the fact that he in the investigation was found to be innocent. It as a result of combined effect of these factors was led to hold that his involvement in the matter had remained not proved above doubt. It as a matter of abundant precaution has extended him the benefit of doubt.
13. These reasons are fully supported from the evidence on the record as the crime weapon admittedly had not been recovered in the investigation of the case from the respondent No,
1. It perhaps was because of the fact that during the same he was found innocent.
14. The finding of innocence in his favour though was the opinion of the police but this fact when had been seen in conjunction with the fact on the record that the motive was not directly relatable to him, it has become of significance.
15. The motive could be said to be with his son Muhammad Amin, who had abducted the wife of the deceased.
16. The deceased in return had got registered the case in respect of the same against him, Ahmad Yar and Mst. Rabia. So, he was not involved in that case and so was not directly connected with the motive.
17. It may be mentioned here that it is settled propositions in law that the benefit A of every doubt howsoever, slightest it may be is to be given to the accused.
18. As no recovery of crime weapon was effected from him and he was found innocent during the investigation and was not directly linked with the motive, hence, the learned trial Court was right in applying the rule of abundant pre caution in his case and giving him the benefit of doubt.
19. The finding of his acquittal, therefore, is based upon the evidence on the record and not outside the same. The reasons advanced by the learned trial Court in the same are cogent and recognized in law.
20. The impugned judgment to the extent of his acquittal, therefore, is neither perverse nor arbitrary. The finding of his acquittal is also not artificial, fanciful and shackingly absurd.
21. There, thus has been found no case for interference with the impugned judgment to the extent of his acquittal.
22. We, therefore, dismiss the instant appeal being without force.