Appellant Bilal alias Bill s/o Ahmad Bakhsh was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran under the provisions of Juvenile Justice System, 2000 in case FIR No, 642/98 dated 06.09.1998 for offence under Sections 302, 148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca. District Lodhran who vide judgment dated 26.07.2002 convicted him under Section 302 PPC for committing Qatl-eAmd Nazir Ahmad constable, deceased, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life as Tazir with direction to him to pay Rs, 50,000/-as compensation under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of the deceased Nazir Ahmad and in default thereof he was also ordered to undergo six months S.-I. Benefit, of Section 382-B was also awarded to him.
2. Five remaining accused persons however were tried by the Special Court constituted under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in the aforesaid case and out of five accused three were convicted, one was awarded life imprisonment, whereas, Sajid and Riaz co-accused were awarded death penalty while Hashim and Aslam were acquitted. These convicts filed appeal before this Court, through Crl. Appeal No, 23/02 alongwith Murder Reference No, 02/02, which was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court by maintaining the conviction. However, penalty of death was converted into life imprisonment regarding two convicts namely Sajid and Riaz. Likewise appeal filed by state against, acquitted accused was also dismissed.
3. It is inter alia contended that the appellant was not named in the FIR. His case was at par with the acquitted co-accused persons referred to above. No specific role was attributed either to the present appellant or to those acquitted accused. No identification parade was held. The appellant, who was already under the custody of the police in another criminal case, was falsely involved in the present case and rifle .222 was also planted upon him. The prosecution has produced as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant. The ocular account comprised upon P.W.2 Raja Ameer Sub-Inspector, Muhammad Riaz Sub-Inspector P.W.5 and Muhammad Aslam Sub- Inspector P.W.13. These three PWs were also appeared before the learned Special Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court and made same statement regarding the co-accused, who were tried separately.
The statement of these three PWs was disbelieved by the learned Special Court as well as by this Court. Therefore, propriety demands that the statement of these witnesses be disbelieved and appellant may be acquitted in particular when the judgment of Anti-Terrorism. Court has been upheld by the learned Division Bench of this Court, which has binding effect.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposes the submissions made at bar by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the judgment rendered by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court has no binding effect upon the learned Addl: Sessions Judge. Although the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has tried his level best to support the impugned judgment and consequent conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant but had no plausible answer to the forceful arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment rendered by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court regarding the acquitted accused with similar role has been upheld by the learned Division Bench of this Court.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner's case is at par with those co-accused persons namely Muhammad.
Hashim and Muhammad Aslam, who were acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court. By disbelieving the evidence of PWs qua their role. I am afraid how their testimony could be relied upon against the present appellant, particularly when judgment of the learned Special Judge was upheld by a learned Division Bench of this Court. By now it is well settled proposition of law. which equally applies in civil as well as criminal matters, that similarly placed are to be treated alike and merely because appellant being juvenile was tried by different learned Court, cannot be treated differently. I also find that so far as the role of the appellant is concerned, the case of the prosecution is full of discrepancies and on the basis of such weak type of evidence, it would not be in the safer administration of justice to convict the appellant for any offence. In my considered view the prosecution has badly failed to prove, the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. I, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, consequent conviction and sentence awarded to the, appellant. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him by the prosecution. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.