Muhammad Anwaar-ul-Haq, J.--Appellants in Criminal Appeal No, 616 of 2005, namely Nasir Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees and Basharat were tried in a Complaint Case pertaining to case F.I.R.
No, 455/2003 dated 04.09.2003, registered at Police Station Saddar Kharian District Gujrat, in respect of offences under Sections 302, 109, 148, 149 PPC and have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat through the impugned judgment dated 21.04.2005, as under:-- Death Sentence each under Section 302(b) read with Section 34 PPC on two counts and to pay compensation of Rs, 50,000/- each under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. to legal heirs of both the deceased, recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in default of payment of compensation to further undergo for six months S.I. each.
Murder Reference No, 56 of 2008 for confirmation or otherwise of death sentence awarded to appellants Nasir Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees and Basharat and Criminal Appeal No, 2077 of 2005 filed by the complainant against acquittal of accused Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Akmal, Abdul Rehman, Muhammad Sadiq, Mian Khan, Munir Ahmad and Ijaz Ahmad as well as Criminal Revision No, 560 of 2005 for enhancement of compensation shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
It is pertinent to mention here that vide order of this Court dated 19.12.2005 the appeal against acquittal has been dismissed to the extent of Respondents No, 4 & 5, namely Muhammad Sadiq and Mian Khan, whereas notice was issued to Respondents No, 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7, namely Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Akmal, Abdul Rehman, Munir Ahmad and Ijaz Ahmad.
2. Initially, complainant Subedar Abdul Ghafoor (PW-3) got registered F.I.R. No, 455/2003 (Ex.PD), under Sections 302, 109, 148 & 149 PPC at Police Station Saddar Kharian, but during the investigation all the ten accused nominated in the FIR were declared innocent by the police and discharge report was presented to the learned Ilaqa Magistrate who did not agree with the same, whereupon the challan was submitted by the police before the Court of competent jurisdiction while placing the names of all the ten nominated accused in Column No, 2 thereof.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the investigation, complainant Subedar Abdul Ghafoor (PW-3) has preferred a Private Complaint (Ex. PK) alleging therein that on 04.09.2003 at about 06:00 p.m. he alongwith Mian Muhammad Ameer (deceased), Shabbir Hussain (deceased),Khadim Hussain, Tanvir Hussain, Sadaqat Ali and Muhammad Zaman was coming back to his village on motorcycles after making arrangements for a 'Alm' in respect of embracing Islam by Sheikh Raheel Ahmad scheduled to be held on 7th September, 2003 at `Alfatah Markazi Jamia Masjid" Chak Sikandar No, 30; that Mian Muhammad Ameer and Shabbir Hussain were going ahead on a motorcycle and when they reached near the Taira' of Noor Ahmad situated at Road Ronda Bansarian, suddenly, Nasir Ahmad armed with mouser, Muhammad Idrees, Basharat and Muhammad Akmal armed with pistols .30 bore, Muhammad Bashir, Munir Ahmad, Ijaz and Abdul Rehman armed with rifles alongwith two unknown persons armed with firearms, came in front of them and intercepted the motorcycle of Mian Muhammad Ameer, Nasir Ahmad raised `Ialkara' to teach them a lesson for making arrangements of Valsa' and fired a shot with his mouser which landed on the head of Mian Muhammad Ameer, Muhammad Idrees made fire with his pistol .30 bore hitting at the head of Shabbir Hussain, Muhammad Bashir fired a shot with his rifle hitting on the chest of Mian Muhammad Ameer, Munir Ahmad fired a shot with his rifle which landed on the shoulder of Mian Muhammad Ameer, Muhammad Akmal made fire with his pistol hitting on the back of Shabbir Hussain, Basharat fired a shot with his pistol which hit Shabbir Hussain on his belly, Ijaz Ahmad fired a shot with his rifle hitting Shabbir Hussain on his belly, Abdul Rehman made a fire with his rifle which landed on the right buttock of Mian Muhammad Ameer; then, all the accused persons made fire shots with their respective weapons at Shabbir Hussain and Mian Muhammad Ameer hitting at different parts of their bodies; that he alongwith his companions kept on making hue and cry but due to fear no body came forward to provide them help; that Mian Muhammad Ameer and Shabbir Hussain succumbed to their injuries at the spot.
It was further alleged in the private complaint (Ex. PK) that all the accused persons committed this occurrence at the abetment of Muhammad Sadiq and Mian Khan accused.
Motive behind the occurrence was that Mian Muhammad Ameer (deceased) was a known leader of the Muslim Community of Chak Sikandar whereas the accused persons are 'Qadianies' and before this occurrence they had been committing mischief because of which litigation was pending between the parties and due to this grudge the aforesaid accused persons with their common intention have committed this occurrence.
4. All the ten accused were summoned by the learned trial Court and they were formally charge sheeted under Sections 302, 109, 148 and 149 PPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The complainant produced as many as five witnesses to prove the charge against the accused whereas eight CWs were examined by the learned trial Court. Dr. Tahir Bashir (PW-2) provided medical evidence; Muhammad Siddique, Inspector (CW-5), Muhammad Nazir, S.I. (CW-6) and Muhammad Arif Gondal, Inspector (CW-7) conducted investigation of this case, whereas Subedar Abdul Ghafoor, complainant (PW-3) and Tanvir Hussain (PW-4) have furnished the ocular account. Fateh Muhammad (PW-5) provided evidence regarding the abetment.
5. On 05.09.2003 at about 5.30 a.m., Dr. Tahir Bashir (PW-2) conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mian Muhammad Ameer (deceased) and observed as under:-- (i)A fire-arm entry wound 1(1/2) x 1(1/2) cm on the medial side of left leg. Tattooing was present.
(ii)A fire-arm exit wound 2(1/2) x 3(1/2) cm on the posterior and medial part of left leg (exit of Injury No, 1).
(iii)Fire-arm entry wound 1(1/2) x 1(1/2) cm on the left upper thigh with blackening present.
(iv)Fire-arm exit wound 3 x 2 cm medially on the left upper thigh (exit of Injury No, (v)Fire-arm entry wound 3 in number on the back of right iliac region measuring each 1(1/2) x 1(1/2) cm in the area of 6 x 4 cm (three in number).
(vi)Fire-arm exit wound 2 x 2 cm on the front of left lower chest.
(vii) Fire-arm exit wound 2 x 2 cm on the front of left lower abdomen.
(viii) Fire-arm exit wound 2 x 2 cm on the left side of umbilicus region (Injuries Nos, 6, 7 and 8 are exit of Injury No, 5).
(ix)Abrasion multiple in area 5 x 4 cm left knee joint underneath fracture.
(x) Fire-arm wound 2 x 2 cm on the back and top of right shoulder (metallic body recovered from the right shoulder and handed over to police).
(xi)Two fire-arm wound (entry) measuring each 1(1/2) x 1(1/2) cm on the right lower chest (two foreign bodies recovered from the abdominal area and handed over to the police.
(xii) Fire-arm entry wound 2(1/2) x 2 cm on the back of skull.
(xiii) Fire-arm exit wound 4 x 4 cm on the front of skull (exit of Injury No, 12).
In his opinion, all the injuries were ante-mortem, caused by firearm except Injury No, 9, caused by blunt weapon. Cause of death was Injury No, 12, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The probable time between injuries and death was within fifteen minutes whereas between death and post-mortem 12 to 20 hours.
On the same day at about 4.55 a.m., PW-2 had conducted the post-mortem exa4mination on the dead body of Mian Muhammad Shabbir and observed as under:-- (i)Lacerated fire-arm wound 1(1/2) x 1(1/2)cm on the left lumber region internally with blackening present.
(ii)Fire-arm exit wound 4 x 3 cm on the back of left lumber region.
(iii)Fire-arm exit wound 1(1/2) x 1(1/2) cm on the left, scapular region with blackening and tattooing was present.
(iv)Fire-arm exit wound on the posterior side of right scapular-region measuring 4 x 3 cm.
(v)Fire-arm entry wound 1(1/2) x 1(1/2) cm on the lower part of abdomen 2 cm below the umbilical region.
(vi)Fire-arm exit wound 4 x 5 cm on the right iliac fossa.
(vii) Fire-arm entry wound 1(1/2) x (1/2) cm on the right partial region with blackening.
(viii) A fire-arm exit wound 4 x 5 cm on the left partial region underneath fracture.
(ix)Two fire-arm entry wounds measuring each 1(1/2) x 1(1/2) cm on the lateral side of left femur.
(x) Two exit fire-arm wounds measuring each 3 x 2 cm on the medial side of lower end of femur.
(xi)Fire-arm entry wound 1(1/2) x 1(1/2) cm on, the interior side of middle left leg.
(xii)Fire-arm exit wound 2(1/2) x 2 cm on the lateral side of left leg.
(xiii) Fire-arm entry wound 2 x 2 cm with blackening on the right ankle joint medially.
(xiv) Fire-arm exit wound 4(1/2) x 3 cm on the lateral side of right ankle joint.
In the opinion of the doctor, injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by fire-arm weapons.
Injury No, 1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Cause of death was hemorrhage and loss of vital organs. Probable time between injuries and death was within 15 minutes while between death and post-mortem examination it was 12 to 20 hours.
6. The learned ADA after tendering in evidence certain documents i,e, Ex.PW, Ex.PW/1, Ex.PX, Ex.PY, Ex.PZ, Ex.PAA, Ex.PBB and Ex.PCC closed the prosecution case.
7. Thereafter, statements of all the accused as required under Section 342 Cr.P.C. were recorded, in which they refuted all the allegations levelled against them and professed their innocence. While answering to question (Why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you?), Appellant Nasir Ahmad replied as under:-- "I am innocent. Witnesses are inimical towards me. I never participated in occurrence. Occurrence was unseen one. No-body had seen the occurrence. Complainant party has a religious rivalry against me and other accused named in the F.I.R. As I and other accused belong to Ahmadia community and the complainant side belongs to Ahle-Islam. As the occurrence was not witnessed by any one so they have nominated me and other members of Ahmadia community as accused and also added the unknown persons as accused that if at any stage the actual accused persons come on line they may also be added along with us. I and other accused persons named in the F.I.R. surrendered themselves before the law enforcement agencies. Large number of persons of village Chak Sikandar and other villagers appeared before the Investigating Officer in spite of belonging to different set of religious thought in our defence and stated before I.O. about our innocence. I and other accused named in the F.I.R. offered cross dialogue with the witnesses of the prosecution and offered them to get any type of satisfaction about us but complainant party did not accept our offers and were of the view that they will get challan us at any cost. Four I.Os after thorough investigation declared me and other accused innocent. I was injured prior to occurrence, long bone of my left arm was fractured and in the above said state of affaires no body can operate weapon like mouser or .30 bore pistol"
Appellants Muhammad Idrees and Basharat adopted the same stance as taken by the Appellant Nasir Ahmad.
8. All the accused/appellants did not appear as their own witness under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C., however, they produced some documentary evidence i,e, Ex. DA to Ex. DM in their defence.
9. After conclusion of the trial, co-accused namely Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Akmal, Abdur Rehman, Munir Ahmad, Ijaz Ahmad, Muhammad Sadiq and Mian Khan were acquitted from the charges, whereas appellants Nasir Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees and Basharat have been convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court, as mentioned above.
10.Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal (Crl. Appeal No, 616 of 2005) contends that the prosecution witnesses are highly inimical, interested and chance witnesses apart from being related to the deceased; that it has been admitted by both the eyewitnesses i,e, PW-3 Subedar Abdul Ghafoor and PW-4 Tanveer Hussain that there was enmity between the parties because of religious differences and in the past, murder cases were registered against each other and in such a situation corroboration in support of the ocular account is a must, but there is absolutely no corroboration from any source; that 18 empties of .30-bore pistol were recovered from the spot, but no weapon of offence was recovered from any of the appellants, as such there is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory on the file. Further contends that the medical evidence at the most can be considered as supportive evidence and is not a corroborative piece of evidence, even otherwise there is a serious conflict between the ocular account and the medical evidence; that the prosecution story is not probable in the circumstances of this case for the reason that PW-3 claims to be 'Imam' of `Alfatah Markazi Jamia Masjid' and it is also his case that he was present at a distance of 20/25 feet from the accused, but despite of the admitted religious differences between the parties he has not received any injury; had he (PW-3) been present at the spot he would have been the main target of the assailants. Also contends that immediate motive of occurrence as per the FIR was that one Sheikh Raheel Ahmad embraced Islam and in this connection a 'Jalsa' was going to take place and for that reason this occurrence has been committed, but said. Sheikh Raheel Ahmad has not appeared either before the police or before the learned trial Court to support the prosecution case and that none has appeared in support of the assertion that arrangement for 'Jalsa' was being made by the complainant.
11.On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has controverted the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants by submitting that the matter was promptly reported to the police by an eye-witness, it was reported directly at the Police Station wherein every detail of the incident such as place, names of the accused, weapons which they were carrying at the relevant time, the roles which they had played and the motive has been mentioned; that the prosecution has produced most natural eye-witnesses of the occurrence; that PW-4 Tanveer Hussain is real son of deceased Muhammad Ameer and real brother of the other deceased Shabbir Hussain who has no enmity of any sort with the appellants therefore, he is an independent witness. Further contends that substitution of the accused by the complainant is a rare phenomena as his real brother and real nephew were murdered so he will not substitute innocent persons in place of the real culprits; that even otherwise the complainant is resident of the same area and his presence at the place of occurrence has reasonably been explained by him. Also contends that as a matter of fact Sheikh Raheel Ahmad embraced Islam in West Germany and in the village Chak Sikandar the Muslims were going to celebrate the event which is the immediate cause of the incident; that the fact of embracing Islam by Sheikh Raheel Ahmad was mentioned in many newspapers of the relevant period and those clippings of the newspapers have been brought on the record as Ex.PW, Ex.PW/1 & Ex.PX; that time of occurrence, place of occurrence, locale of injuries, time between the death and the post-mortem examinations by the doctor are the circumstances which strengthen the ocular account and are sufficient to believe the same; that according to the eyewitnesses the appellants were armed with .30-bore pistols/mouser and 18 empties of .30 bore pistol/mouser were also recovered from the spot, which is sufficient corroboration in the circumstances of the case.
12.As far as the appeal against acquittal (Crl. Appeal No, 2077 of 2005) is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that all the respondents were accused of firing at both the deceased and there was no circumstance for the learned trial Court to extend them the benefit of doubt as the ocular account remained consistent qua them which was substantially supported by the medical evidence available on the record.
13.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, have given anxious consideration to their arguments and have also scanned the record with their able assistance.
14.In this occurrence, two persons namely Muhammad Ameer and Shabbir Hussain have lost their lives. The matter was initially reported to the police through FIR (Ex.PD), which was recorded on the statement of Subedar Abdul Ghafoor who appeared as PW-3. However, all the accused nominated in the FIR were found innocent during the investigation and the police prepared a discharge report in favour of the accused. Being dissatisfied with the investigation, the complainant filed a Private Complaint with almost the same story wherein the appellants have been convicted and their seven co-accused have been acquitted by the learned trial Court including the accused of the abetment in this case. The ocular account has been furnished by PW- 3 Subedar Abdul Ghafoor and PW-4 Tanveer Hussain. PW-3 Subedar Abdul Ghafoor is brother of deceased Muhammad Ameer and uncle of deceased Shabbir Hussain, whereas PW-4 Tanveer Hussain is real son of deceased Muhammad Ameer and real brother of deceased Shabbir Hussain.
It is the case of the prosecution that on the day of occurrence i,e, 04.09.2003 at 6:00 p.m. the deceased and the eye-witnesses were returning on two motorcycles after making arrangement for a 'Jalsa' to celebrate the embracing Islam by one 'Qadiani' namely Sh. Raheel and they were attacked upon by the appellants alongwith their co-accused.
15. The main stress of the learned counsel for the appellants is on the finding of the police regarding the innocence of all the accused in all the investigations. Muhammad Arif Gondal Inspector CW-7 has stated in his statement as under: On 18.10.2003 I was posted as SHO at P.S. Saddar Kharian, On that day I investigated this case and agreed with the investigation conducted by SI/Nazir Ahmad. On 25.10.2003 I prepared report u/S. 173 Cr.P.C. of this case. During this I also prepared discharge report of the accused persons recommended by the DSP/SDPO Kharian, which application was rejected/ turned down by learned Ilaqa Magistrate. "
The statement of CW-7 shows that all the accused including appellants were declared innocent and a discharge report was also submitted in their favour. Learned counsel for the appellants is of the view that finding of police is sufficient to cause a fatal dent to the prosecution case, as the police is the main source to place first-hand information before the Court regarding an occurrence. His further emphasis is that all the Investigating Officers could not tilt in favour of all the accused who admittedly belong to a minority in the area. We are afraid that the police opinion itself cannot be given any weight in the absence of the evidence of those witnesses who had appeared during the investigation on the basis of which the police has formed its opinion. We are fortified by the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Iqbal vs. State etc. (PLJ 1996 SC 1100), which reads as follows: The opinion of the Police about the innocence of Muhammad Akram or with regard to alibi pleaded by him before the Police during the investigation, which according to the Investigating Officer was supported by a number of witnesses, lack evidentiary value. The accused has not produced the witnesses in the Court in proof of his alibi. Needless to say that opinion of the Police about the guilt or innocence based on statement of witnesses not produced before the Court is inadmissible in evidence. "
It has further been held in the case of Muhammad Ahmad (Mahmood Ahmed) Vs. The State (2010 SCM R 660) as under: "It may be mentioned here, for the benefit and guidance of all concerned, that determination of guilt or innocence of the accused persons was the exclusive domain of only the Courts of law established for the purpose and the said sovereign power of the Courts could never be permitted to be exercised by the employees of the police department or by anyone else for that matter. If the tendency of allowing such-like impressions of the Investigating Officer to creep into the evidence was not curbed then the same could lead to disastrous consequences. If an accused person could be let off or acquitted only because the Investigating Officer was of the opinion that such an accused person was innocent then why could not, on the same principle, another accused person be hanged to death only because the Investigating Officer had opined about his guilt."
In view of the above, we are not going to attach any importance to the findings of CWs-6, 7 and 8, to the extent of finding of innocence of the accused in this case especially when the complainant had already opted to file a private complaint being dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the police.
16. Excluding the opinion of police in view of the contentions raised from both the sides, there are two main points for determination in this case, i,e,:-- (a)Whether the story narrated by the prosecution in the private complaint is probable? and (b)Whether the ocular account is worth reliance without any independent corroboration in the peculiar circumstances of this case?
The record reveals that there is a religious antipathy between the parties as the complainant party is "Muslim" and the appellants' are "Ahmadis (as per the complaint and other record of this case); both the groups are living in the same village. It has been admitted by the eye-witnesses of this case i,e, PW-3 and PW-4 that in the past, criminal cases including the murder cases were got registered by both the parties against each other and in the murder case registered against `Ahmadis' all the accused of the case were acquitted whereas in the case registered against the Muslims, four persons were convicted. It has also been admitted by the said PWs that few persons who are accused in this case were also accused in the earlier cases as well; therefore, enmity between the parties is admitted and it is also on the record that PW-3 is 'Imam Masjid' of the mosque of the same village. It has come on the record undisputedly that both the deceased have lost their lives due to serious religious grudge between the parties and it is also an admitted position that the same grudge was also there with all force against the complainant (PW-3) and the other eye-witness (PW-4), but they did not receive even a scratch despite of their alleged presence at the place of occurrence, we have noticed that according to the site-plan (Ex.PL) place of occurrence was not a populated area rather was a deserted place and in the circumstances it is not probable that ten accused persons, all armed with deadly weapons, if emerged at that place and resorted to firing, why they did not cause any injury to the said eye-witnesses. In a criminal case, the most important point for determination for a Court is, whether the prosecution story is probable and whether a prudent man believes the same. Here we respectfully refer the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Shamim and 2 others vs. The State and another (2003 SCM R 1466), which reads as under:-- "The prosecution story being the foundation on which edifice of the prosecution case is raised occupies a pivotal position in a criminal case. It should, therefore, stand to reason and must be natural, convincing and free from any inherent improbability. It is neither safe to believe a prosecution story which does not meet these requirements nor a prosecution case based on an improbable prosecution story can sustain conviction. "
In view of all the circumstances mentioned above, we are of the considered view that the prosecution story as narrated in the FIR and then in the private complaint does not appeal to reason, to the extent of the alleged presence of both the eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence.
17. For the second point as to whether any corroboration is required, suffice it to say that it is a Case where witnesses are closely related, enmity between the parties is admitted and presence of witnesses at the place of occurrence on the face of it, is as per chance. It is well settled principle of law that in such like cases strong and independent corroboration is required to believe the ocular account, which essential corroboration, in our humble view is lacking in this case. Admittedly, no weapon of offence could be recovered from the appellants and even there is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory available on the record regarding the 18 empties allegedly recovered from the place of occurrence during the investigation.
Another question, which arises with reference to the corroboration, is, whether medical evidence can corroborate the ocular evidence qua the appellants. The answer is in the negative, because when we talk of corroboration, it is always with regard to the story of the prosecution and with regard to the identity of each accused. The medical evidence may confirm the ocular evidence with regard to the receipt of the injury, kind of weapon used for causing the injury, duration between the injury and the death, but it cannot connect the accused with the commission of the crime. In this case there are also some significant contradictions in the ocular account and in the medical evidence, as it is the case of the prosecution that Muhammad Akmal, acquitted co- accused of the appellants, fired with pistol which hit on the back of Shabbir deceased whereas that fire-arm injury in fact is an exit wound; as per the FIR, fire shot made by Ijaz Ahmad, acquitted co- accused, landed on right shoulder of Shabbir deceased, but as per medical evidence that is also an exit wound; as per the prosecution case Appellant Nasir Ahmad stopped the deceased from the front side of the motorcycle and then made fire which hit on the head of Muhammad Ameer deceased, but on the front of the head of said deceased there is only an exit wound. It has been held in the case of Israr Ali vs. The State (2007 SCM R 525) that medical evidence alone cannot be corroborative evidence as the injuries cannot speak of their authorship.
18.In the light of our above discussion, we find that the prosecution story in the circumstances is doubtful in nature and the accused/appellants are entitled to the benefit thereof not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. In this context, we respectfully refer the case of Muhammad Akram vs. The State (2009 SCM R 230), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: The nutshell of the whole discussion is that the prosecution case is not free from doubt. It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matter of right and not of grace. It was observed by this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCM R 1345 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
Therefore, Criminal Appeal No, 616 of 2005 is allowed, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court against the appellants through the impugned judgment dated 21.04.2005 are set aside and by extending them the benefit of doubt they are acquitted of the charges. The appellants are in jail and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Death sentence of convicts Nasir Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees and Basharat is not confirmed and Murder Reference No, 56 of 2008 is answered in the Negative.
19.As far as Criminal Appeal No, 2077 of 2005 against acquittal of accused/respondents Muhammad Bashir, Muhammad Akmal, Abdul Rehman, Munir Ahmad and Ijaz Ahmad is concerned, in the light of our observations regarding the acquittal of three appellants in Criminal Appeal No, 616 of 2005, this appeal has lost its relevance, even otherwise it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the judgment reported as Haji Amanullah vs. Munir Ahmad and others (2010 SCM R 222) that when an accused person is acquitted by the trial Court, he enjoys double presumption of innocence and to dislodge that presumption very strong and convincing reasons are required, but no such reasons are reflected from the record, therefore, the acquittal of the above named accused/respondents as ordered by the learned trial Court is maintained and Criminal Appeal No, 2077 of 2005 stands dismissed. In view of the acquittal of appellants Nasir Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees and Basharat, Criminal Revision No, 560 of 2005 against the in for enhancement of compensation is also dismissed.