Manzoor Ahmad Malik, J.--This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No, 1609/03 (Muhammad Akbar etc. us. The State); Criminal Appeal No, 1688/03 (Sarfraz Ahmad vs. Abdur Razzaq etc.) and Criminal Revision No, 929/03 (Sarfraz Ahmad us. Muhammad Akbar etc.), as all these three matters arise out of the same judgment dated 30.08.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, whereby, appellants were convicted under Section 302/34 PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life each with a fine of Rs, 20,000/- each with a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs, 1,00,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default of fine to further undergo SI for six months each. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellants. However, benefit of doubt was extended to seventeen co-accused of the appellants, namely, (i) Abdul Razaq son of Muhammad Yar, (ii) Fazal Abbas son of Wali Muhammad, (iii)
Ghulam Ali son of Wali Muhammad, (iv) Raiz son of Dost Muhammad, (v) Sultan son of , Sahoo, (vi)
Fazal son of Sultan, (vii) Mukhtar son of Allah Yar, (viii) Riaz son of Muhammad Hayat, (ix) Mukhtar son of M.Yar, (x) Nazra son of Gulla, (xi) Ferroz son of Haider, (xii) Riaz son of Gulla, (xiii) M. Aslam son of Dosa, (xiv) Shana son of Gulla, (xv) Khizar Hayat son of Dosa, (xvi) Asif son of Muhammad Ali and
(xvii) Asghar son of Muhammad Ali, by way of acquittal from the charges levelled against them. It is pertinent to mention here that Crl. A. No, 1689/03 filed by convicts of the cross-version, namely, Sarfraz Ahmad and Yousaf has been withdrawn from this Court on 8.4.2010 on the ground that the said convicts had already served out their sentences while Crl. Revision No, 1083/03 filed for enhancement of sentences of the said Sarfraz and Yousaf was also dismissed as withdrawn on the same day i,e, 08.04.2010.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by PW-10 Sarfraz Ahmad (complainant) in the FIR (Exh.PN) are that Sarfraz (appellant) got registered a criminal case against him (complainant) and his brother Muhammad Nawaz regarding theft of cattle and they were on bail in said case; that during the course of investigation by the CIA Staff, the Investigating Officer deputed Umar Draz as an Arbitrator who gave decision against the complainant party and directed them to give Rs, 1,50,000/- or cattle to M.Akbar (appellant) while final decision was to be held on Special Oath.
According to the complainant on 7.9.2001 at about 5.00 p.m., he alongwith his real brother Nawaz (deceased), Ikramullah and his real mother Mst. Sughran Bibi took cattle to the dera of Akbar (appellant) where appellants alongwith others were present alongwith their respective fire-arms. It has been mentioned by the complainant in"-the FIR that the complainant asked Akbar (appellant) etc. to keep the cattle at his dera but Akbar (appellant) and co-accused became angry whereafter Akbar (appellant) raised a Lalkara that the complainant party should not go alive. It has further been mentioned in the FIR Zulfiqar fired with .222 bore rifle which hit on the right side of abdomen of Nawaz deceased, M.Akbar (appellant) fired with his gun which hit on the right flank of Nawaz (deceased), Umar Hayat fired with his rifle which landed on the right upper arm of Nawaz (deceased) who fell down on the ground whereafter Ghulam Ali accused gave two sota blows near the right eye and back of head of Nawaz (deceased), Fazal Abbas fired with his rifle which hit near the left elbow of Sarfraz Ahmad, Ghulam All gave a sota blow which hit on the head of complainant Sarfraz and that thereafter all the accused made indiscriminate firing while some of the accused took away the cattle in question forcibly. The complainant also stated in the FIR, that the hue and cry raised by the complainant party attracted Yousaf and Ghulam Ali and witnessed the occurrence. As per FIR, the complainant also alleged that he and his brother Nawaz were brought to the RHC Midh Ranjha in the injured condition where Nawaz (deceased) succumbed to the injuries. The motive stated in the FIR was that Akbar (appellant) etc. had got registered a criminal case of theft against the complainant party who took their cattle to the dera of Akbar (appellant) where the complainant party was attacked by the appellants' party and caused the above said loss.
3. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial Court, copies were distributed to the accused as required under Section 265-C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charge was framed to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution produced as many as 13 witnesses during the trial. The appellants/accused were examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C. In reply to question "why this case against you and why the PW-s have deposed against you", appellant Zulfiqar Ali, in his statement recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C., has stated as under:-- "The PW-s have falsely deposed against me being relative inter se. Akbar my brother had got registered a case of theft against Muhammad Nawaz deceased, Sarfraz complainant. They were challaned in the above said theft case and during investigation of that case CIA Staff Police Sargodha appointed Umar Draz sole Arbitrator by the consent of Sarfraz etc. and my brother.
Muhammad Bashir was appointed surety. Umar Draz Arbitrator gave verdict against Sarfraz and Nawaz deceased and directed M.Bashir surety to hand over Aghwan of Rs, 1,50,000/- as decided by him. On the day of occurrence at about 5.00 p.m. M.Bashir surety brought cattle thirteen in number and handed over the cattle of Aghwan as decided and directed by the Arbitrator to M.Akbar my brother. Sarfraz complainant, Nawaz deceased, Yousai PW- alongwith ten others while armed with deadly weapon made aggression at our dera and tried to snatch the cattle forcibly. Upon which the firing took place in which my brother M.Akbar and Abdul Razzaq accused and Sarfraz and Nawaz deceased received injuries. We informed the matter to the police. M.Akbar and Abdul Razaq were medically examined by the doctor at RHC, Bhabra and they remained admitted for their treatment for about one month. The police under the influence of M.Aslam Midhana above mentioned, twisted the real facts of the case and falsely and blindly challaned me and my brother M.Akbar, Umar Hayat and Abdul Razaq. We made applications to the police but the police did not register our case upon which a writ petition was filed in the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, which the police registered a cross case against Sarfraz, Yousaf PW- etc". Appellant Akbar stated as under:-- "I rely on the answer of same question given by my co-accused Zulfiqar in his statement u/S. 342 of Cr.P.C. which was recorded in my presence in Court". Appellant Umar Hayat stated as under:-- "I rely on the answer of same question given by my co-accused Zulfiqar in his statement u/S. 342 of Cr.P.C. which was recorded in my presence in Court".
However, the appellants did not opt to depose on Oath as required under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. but produced DW-1 Dr. Nayyar Abbas in defence.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that it is a case of two versions one put forth 'by the prosecution and the other by the appellants/accused side; that complainant party of the instant case was accused party in the cross-version case in which they were challaned and ultimately convicted and sentenced variously and that the appeal filed against those convictions and, sentences has been withdrawn from this Court on account of serving out the entire sentences which proves that the accused party of the cross-version, who has not challenged their convictions and sentences, has admitted their guilt.
Learned counsel further contends that as many as twenty persons were implicated in this case out of whom seventeen were found innocent during the course of investigation and they were consequently acquitted by the learned trial Court while the appellants, who are three in number, were convicted; that in this background, the prosecution evidence is to be examined very carefully; that admittedly, this occurrence took place at the dera of appellant Akbar; that case of the complainant party was that they were at the dera of Akbar to hand over cattle as per decision of the arbitrator and in such like circumstances, the appellants had absolutely no motive to attack the complainant party as alleged by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, it has categorically been held by the learned trial Court that it is a case of free fight and in such a situation, every individual is responsible for his own act; that as per prosecution case, Zulfiqar Ali appellant was armed with .222 rifle and caused an injury on the right side of abdomen of Nawaz (deceased); that the allegation against Muhammad Akbar appellant was that while armed with 12 bore gun, he caused an injury on the right flank of Nawaz (deceased) while allegation against Umar Hayat appellant was that he fired a shot with his rifle which hit on the right upper arm of the Nawaz (deceased).
Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the above allegations against the appellants are totally belied by the medical evidence furnished by PW-1 Dr.Amjad Iqbal who conducted postmortem examination on the body of deceased who, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that injury on the right side of chest of the deceased had tattooing, burning and blackening and was caused by .12 bore gun as plastic wads were recovered from the said wound, whereas, Injury No, 2 is on the lateral side of right chest and the same is an exit wound of Injury No, 1, therefore, the allegation that the said injury was caused by Zulfiqar appellant with .222 bore gun on the chest of the deceased is belied by the medical evidence; that as far as injury attributed to Umar Hayat appellant is concerned, the allegation was that he caused a firearm injury with a rifle which landed on the right upper arm of the deceased but the same is also belied by the medical evidence furnished by. PW-1 Dr. Amjad Iqbal because these wounds of entry are in continuation of the exit wound of Injury No, 2 whereas Injury No, 4 is continuation of Injury No,
3. While advancing his submissions learned counsel contends that Nawaz (deceased) in fact received one fire-arm shot of .12 bore gun which is manifest from the report of PW-1 Dr.Amjad Iqbal under the head of dissection wherein he has stated as under:-- "1. Whole charge of the fire-arm entered from Injury No, 1 alongwith three pellets which traversed between the ribs and under the skin and fractured the 8th rib, and passed out from Injury No,
2. The plastic wad was recovered under the skin from the track.
2. The pallets entered from Injury No, 3 cut the skin, under lying musculature, main blood vessel of the right upper arm and passed out from Injury No, 4".
While concluding his submissions learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt whereas the plea raised by the appellants is more probable, natural, confidence inspiring and fits in the circumstances of the case; that it is not disputed that two persons from the defence side, namely, Akbar and Abdur Razzaq were also injured whose MLRs are available on the record as Exh. DC; that mere recovery of weapon is of no avail to the prosecution on account of non-recovery of any crime empty from the spot and as such there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory , therefore, benefit of doubt may be extended to the appellants and that, in the afore-referred circumstances, appellants are entitled to acquittal. He has placed reliance on Abdul Subhan vs. Raheem Bakhsh and another (PLJ 1994 SC 87), Bashir Ahmad and another vs. The State (1974 P.Cr.LJ. 385) and Muhammad Aslam Khan vs. The State (1999 SCM R 172).
6. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant while vehemently opposing this appeal, contends that; that the appellants are named in the FIR with specific roles; that the natural eye-witness account was furnished by the prosecution which even consists of injured witness and despite cross-examination the defence could shake nothing from their testimony; that the PW-s had no enmity with the appellants to falsely depose against them; that, even otherwise, in such like cases substitution is a rare phenomenon; that the date, time and place of occurrence is admitted; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and that the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court be maintained. Learned counsel for the complainant adds that there was no mitigating circumstance with the learned trial Court to award lesser sentence to the appellants and that normal penalty of death should have been awarded to them.
While arguing Crl. A. No, 1688/03, filed against the acquittal of Abdul Razzaq, Fazal Abbas and Ghulam Ali which was withdrawn to the extent of Respondents Nos, 4 to 17 but was admitted by this Court on 26.10.2004 to the extent of Respondents Nos, 1 to 3, learned counsel for the complainant contends that there is specific allegation against respondent Fazal Abbas of causing injury on the person of Nawaz deceased; that specific allegation of causing injury with a sota was also against respondent Ghulam Ali on the person of deceased whereas she concedes that no injury is attributed to respondent Abdur Razzaq; that the learned trial Court has not given any reason for acquittal of respondents Fazal Abbas and Ghulam Ali and that they are liable to be convicted accordingly. In support of Crl. Revision No, 929/03, learned counsel for the complainant contends that lesser sentence, as awarded by the learned trial Court to the appellants, is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case as the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and in such a situation normal penalty is a death.
On other hand, learned counsel for the respondents in Crl. A. No, 1688/03, submits that no weapon of offence was recovered from the respondents; that there was conflict between the medical evidence and the ocular account as far as allegations against Fazal Abbas and Ghulam Ali are concerned who was armed with a rifle whereas injuries on the person of Sarfraz are concerned those were the result of pallets which is contradicted by the MLR (Exh.PA); that the respondents have rightly been acquitted by the learned trial Court as injury attributed to Ghulam Ali respondents is concerned, PW-1 Dr. Amjad Iqbal has admitted in the cross-examination that it could be result of a fall on the ground which has created a dent in the prosecution case; that presumption of double innocence is attached to the respondents as they have earned acquittal after a regular trial, therefore, the appeal filed against their acquittal is liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, have given anxious consideration to their arguments and have also scanned the evidence on record with the able assistance of learned Advocates for the parties.
8. Occurrence in this case took place on 7.9.2001 at about 5.00 p.m., the matter was reported to the police by PW-10 Sarfraz Ahmad (complainant) at 7.00 p.m., the formal FIR was registered on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. while the distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was about three kilometers.
9. It is a case of two versions one set out by the prosecution and the other in the statements of the appellants. The common features in both the versions (one set out by the prosecution and the other by the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C.) are that (i) the place of occurrence is not disputed, (ii) firing is also not disputed but the manner of occurrence is different, and (iii) cause of the incident, in both the versions, is almost same.
10.First of all, we would like to see whether the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt because primarily, it is responsibility of the prosecution to discharge the said onus.
11.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, mainly relied on ocular account, medical evidence, recoveries of weapons offence and motive.
12.As far as ocular account is concerned, it consists of PW-10 Sarfraz Ahmad (complainant) who is real brother of Nawaz deceased and PW-11 Ikramullah is the real paternal cousin of the deceased. Presence of PW-10 Sarfraz Ahmad (complainant) at the place of occurrence is not even disputed by the appellants side. We have noted that the FIR in this case was promptly lodged by the said PW-, in which details of the incident have been mentioned. While appearing before the Court, he remained consistent on material particulars of the incident except few minor improvements. So far as PW-11 Ikramullah is concerned, he has also reasonably explained his presence at the spot and his statement is corroborative to the statement cf the complainant on all material particulars and we see no reason not to believe testimony of these PW-s as the same inspire confidence as the Court has to see the quality and not the quantity of prosecution evidence, technicalities are to be overlooked and approach of the Court should be dynamic one.
The only difference, which we have noted in the statements of both these PW-s, is that they did not mention anything regarding the injuries sustained by two persons from the accused side, namely, Akbar(appellant) and Abdul Razaq, acquitted co-accused.
13.As far as motive part of the prosecution story is concerned, the prosecution case is that when the PW-s and the deceased Nawaz, alongwith cattle, had gone to the dera of the Alcbar appellant, pursuant to the verdict given by the Arbitrator, admittedly, a quarrel took place at the dera between both the parties. The appellants, in their statements recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C, have stated that the same story but in a different manner, therefore, much discussion is not required on this aspect of the case.
14.So far as medical evidence is concerned, PW-1 Dr. Amjad Iqbal, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Nawaz, noted the following injuries on his person:-- "1. A large wound of entry going in 5x3 CM with inverted margins on the front of right chest lower part at the level of Xiphi-sternum. Tattooing, blackening and burning were present on the margins.
The right lateral margins of the wound were continued with two parallel furrows over the skin, indicating external track of pellet, which was three CM long.
2. Three wounds of exit in area of 4/3 CM with averted margins 3/4 x 3/4 CM each on lateral side of right chest at the level of Injury No, 1.
3. Six wounds of entry going in 3/4 x 3/4 cm each with inverted margins in area of 5x4 CM on the medial aspect of right upper arm meddle area. Frontal three wounds of entry had blackening and burning over the margins, while posterior three wounds of entry had no blackening and burning, which are probable continuation of Injury No, 2.
4. A large wound of exit 7x6 cm with averted margins having flesh and bone pieces on the margins, on the outer side of right upper arm middle part. There was obvious fractured bone under Injury No, 3.
5. Contusion mark 4x1/2 cm on the right cheek below eye.
6. Lacerated wound 1 1/4 x 1/4 cm on the back of head half CM right to midline. DISSECTION:
1. Whole charge of the fire-arm entered from Injury No, 1 alongwith three pellets which traversed between the ribs and under the skin and fractured the 8th rib, and passed out from Injury No,
2. The plastic wad was recovered under the skin from the track.
2. The pallets entered from Injury No, 3 cut the skin, under lying musculature, main blood vessel of the right upper arm 'and passed out from Injury No, 4".
15.We have noted that PW-1 Dr.Amjad Iqbal has observed six injuries on the person of Nawaz deceased in all, out of whom, four are fire-arm wounds while two are with blunt means.
16.As far as fire-arm wounds are concerned, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that these are the result of one shot fired from .12 bore gun and in this respect he has placed much emphasis on the observation of PW-1 Dr.Amjad Iqbal under the head of "Dissection".
17. Careful analysis of the post-mortem examination report, quoted above for ready reference, reveals that there are four fire-arms wounds i,e, two entry and two exit while two blunt weapon wounds. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the fire-arm wounds are the result of one shot is not borne out from the record as no question was asked from the doctor in this respect during his cross-examination. As far as contention of appellants learned counsel that the description of fire-arms given in the FIR does not coincide with the nature and size of wounds which clearly suggests that the fire-arm used in this case was a .12 bore gun and not .222 rifle as the allegation against the appellants was that they were carrying rifles. It is to be observed that both the witnesses are rustic villagers and not the fire-arm experts, so, they are supposed to be unaware of these technicalities as has been held by the August Supreme Court in the case of Munawar Shah vs. The State 1990 SCM R 1293), at page 1295, :that" as regards the discrepancies in the nature of the fire-arm used, not all villagers can differentiate different types of rifles and guns by their particular distinctive names " Therefore, the fact remains that the deceased received fire- arm injuries and the allegation against the appellants was that they were carrying the fire-arms. In our view, there is no conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidencel. In this regard reliance is placed on Muhammad Riaz vs. Muhammad Zaman And Another (PLJ 2005 SC 1068), the Apex Court of the country in the judicial hierarchy, while dilating upon the point of contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular account in an appeal against acquittal and while setting aside the acquittal of the respondents, at page 107.3, held as under: It would be seen that the deposition of the witness was seeking corroboration from the medical evidence to the extent of nature and seat of injuries and the presence of lacerated and incised wounds found on the person of the deceased, would suggest the use of fire-arm and sharp edged weapon in the occurrence, therefore, the conflict of medical evidence with ocular account, if any, as pointed out by the High Court was only to the extent of statement of doctor according to which one shot was fired. The material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence in a criminal case may create doubt in the prosecution case and if the eye-witnesses are inimical and interested, this doubt may lead to reasonable possibility of the witnesses being not truthful or an inference can be drawn that they by suppressing the truth made a dishonest statement but it is settled proposition of law that mere relationship or enmity is not sufficient to discard the evidence of a natural witness or hold him not truthful and trustworthy. This is not an inflexible rule that in all circumstances, such contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence must be treated to be injurious to the credibility of a witness and his evidence must be excluded from consideration or he must be held not truthful witness rather the ultimate test of veracity of a witness is the inherent merit of his own statement" (emphasis supplied)
18.So far as recovery of weapons of offence is concerned, as no crime empty was recovered from the spot and there is no report of the Forensic Science Laboratory on the record, therefore, no reliance can be placed on this piece of evidence.
19.After careful analysis of the evidence produced by the prosecution in this case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved that the appellants were present at the spot while armed with fire-arms and caused injuries on the person of the deceased. As we have held above, that in this case date, time and place of occurrence is admitted but only the manner of the incident stated by the appellants side is different from the prosecution case. The precedent case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is distinguishable and is not applicable in this case. Even otherwise, every criminal case is decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
20. We have noted that surprisingly, the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 342 Cr.P.C. have stated nothing as to how the complainant side received injuries but only stated that two persons from their side i,e, Akbar and Abdul Razzaq received injuries. Similarly, the prosecution case is also silent about the injuries suffered by two persons of the appellants side, so, it can be gathered from the above that both the parties have not come to the Court with clean hands and have not stated the whole truth. In such a situation, the Court cannot be deterred by the incompleteness of the tale from drawing the inference that properly flow from the evidence and circumstances of the case. In this regard reliance is placed on Syed Ali Beopari vs. Nibaran Mollah and others (PLD 1962 Supreme Court 502).
21. After having looked this case from the above angle, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court has rightly observed that it was a case of free fight as circumstances of the case are suggestive of the fact that there was no pre-meditation or planning of the appellants to commit murder of the deceased, the occurrence in question took place at the spur of the moment, two persons from the appellants side also received injuries whose injuries were suppressed by the prosecution side. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be seen as to which part of Section 302 PPC is attracted because the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant only under Section 302 PPC without mentioning sub-sections (a), (b) or (c) PPC.
Considering the case from every angle, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 302(c) PPC are attracted in this case. To fortify our view, reliance is placed on ABDUL KARIM VS. THE STATE (2007 SCM R 1375). In the said case, in the similar circumstances, accused were convicted under Section 302(c) PPC by the learned trial Court. However, on appeal the High Court, they were convicted under Section 302(b) PPC. The matter went to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Apex Court was pleased to restore judgment of the learned trial Court.
22.In view of what has been discussed above and taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, while maintaining conviction of the appellants, for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz deceased, and partly allowing Criminal Appeal No, 1609/03 filed by Muhammad Akbar, Umer Hayat and Zulfiqar Ali appellants, the same is converted from Section 302/34 PPC to 302(c)/34 PPC and their sentence of imprisonment for life is altered to ten years RI each with a direction to pay a compensation of Rs, 1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased Nawaz each in default whereof appellants are directed to further undergo six months SI each.
Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. is extended to the appellants. However, the amount of fine of Rs, 20,000/-, as ordered by the learned trial Court, is set-aside as the same is against the law. For afore-referred reasons, Criminal Revision No, 929/03 filed for enhancement of sentence of the appellants has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
23.As far as Criminal Appeal No, 1688/03 (Sarfraz Ahmad vs. Abdur Razzaq etc.) is concerned, we have noted that it was filed against seventeen acquitted co-accused of the appellants, namely, (i)
Abdul Razaq son of Muhammad Yar, (ii) Fazal Abbas son of Wali Muhammad; (iii) Ghulam Ali son of Wali Muhammad, (iv) Raiz son of Dost Muhammad, (v) Sultan son of Sahoo, (vi) Fazal son of Sultan,
(vii) Mukhtar son of Allah Yar, (viii) Riaz son of Muhammad Hayat, (ix) Mukhtar son of M. Yar, (x)
Nazra son of Gulla, (xi) Ferroz son of Haider, (xii) Riaz son of Gulla, (xiii) M.Aslam son of Dosa, (xiv)
Shana son of Gulla, (xv) Khizar Hayat son of Dosa, (xvi) A.sif son of Muhammad Ali and (xvii) Asghar son of Muhammad Ali, it was dismissed to the extent of fourteen (Respondents Nos, 4 to 17) while was admitted qua three (Respondents Nos, 1 to 3), namely, Abdul Razzaq, Fazal Abbas and Ghulam Ali. We have gone through the reasons given by the learned trial Court in the last two paragraphs of the impugned judgment in favour of acquittal of the said respondents and we are in agreement with, those reason. It is settled principle of the criminal dispensation of justice that when an accused is acquitted from a case after regular trial, double presumption of innocence is attached to it. This is in line with the law laid down by the Apex Court of the country in the judiciary hierarchy reported in Iftikhar Hussain and others us. The State (2004 SCMR wherein at page 1194 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was observed as under: It is well settled principle of criminal administration of justice that when an accused is acquitted of the charge, he enjoys double presumption of innocence in his favour and Courts seized with acquittal appeal under Section 417 Cr.P.C. are obliged to be very careful in dislodging such presumption. Undoubtedly, two views are always possible while appreciating the evidence available on record, therefore, for such reason and in order to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, it is always insisted that the Court should follow the recognized principles for interference in the acquittal judgment as held in the case of Ghulam Sikandar and another versus Mamraiz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11 that the Appellate Court seized with the acquittal appeal under Section 417 Cr.P.C. is competent to interfere in the order challenged before it provided it has been established that the trial Court has disregarded the material evidence or misread such evidence or received such evidence illegally.........
In this regard further reliance is placed on Haji Paio Khan vs. Sher Biaz and others (PLJ 2009 SC 492), wherein the afore-referred view was further reiterated by the Apex Court of the country.
Keeping in view the above circumstances coupled with guidelines given by the Apex Court of the country in the above quoted precedent case law, this Court is of the affirmed view that there is nothing arbitrary, capricious, fanciful or against the record to warrant interference with the acquittal of these three respondents, therefore, this appeal against their acquittal is dismissed having no merits.