' This appeal has been directed against' the judgment dated 21-7-2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala whereby respondents Nos.1 to 4 have been acquitted of case F.I.R. No,106 dated 28-2-2006 under sections 302, 109 and 148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Sadar Pasrur District Sialkot.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant got lodged an F.I.R. With the allegations that two accused namely Shah Nawaz and Gulzar Ahmad while armed with Kalashnikov and pistol 30-bore respectively along with three unknown accused armed with firearms entered his house and committed murder of his brother Khalid Mehmood as well as his nephew Sohail Khalid and also caused injury to his brother Haq Nawaz who subsequently succumbed to the same. The unknown accused were later on identified as respondents Nos.1 to 4. After investigation, accused persons were tried and the learned trial court vide judgment dated 21-7-2009 acquitted all the accused/respondents of the charge.
3. Learned Law Officer in support of this appeal contends that the findings given by the learned trial court in the impugned judgment are based upon misreading and non-reading of evidence; that respondents Nos.1 to 4 were duly identified by the witnesses during the identification parade conducted in accordance with law; that even specific roles of the respondents were assigned by the witnesses at the time of their identification; that as it was categorically mentioned in the F.I.R.
That the complainant could identify the unknown accused, therefore, there was no need of describing their features. Further contends that there is no motive or ill will on the part of the appellant to falsely involve the respondents in this case; that the recoveries of firearms were effected from the accused/respondents; that the learned trial court has admitted in the impugned judgment that the medical evidence is in line with the ocular account. Further adds that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the real facts and circumstances of the case; that the learned trial court has wrongly acquitted the respondents of the charge despite of the fact that the prosecution has produced sufficient evidence against the accused to connect them with the commission of crime and that they are liable to be convicted and sentenced.
4. Heard.
5. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence available against respondents Nos.1 to 4 with the able assistance of the learned Law Officer. Admittedly, respondents Nos.1 to 4 were not nominated in the F.I.R. And they were subsequently introduced as accused. The source of information regarding their involvement disclosed by P.W.13 Zafar Iqbal was that on 2-5- 2006 he was present at Police Station Sadar Pasrur where a person told him that the respondents were involved in this case, however, neither the particulars of the said person had been mentioned nor he was produced during the investigation or the trial. The complainant also did not ask the said person that how he knew about the involvement of the respondents in this case or whether he had.
Any proof in this regard. The most important evidence against the respondents was the identification parade. The learned trial court while disclosing the infirmities of the identification parade in Para No, 35 of the impugned-judgment has observed as under:- "All the three accused Yasir Nazir, Razzaq Khan and Ansar were made to sit with the dummies jointly. No separate identification parade test proceedings were conducted for each and every accused. The Magistrate did not record in his certificate to rule out the possibility of collusion between the police and the witnesses and that test was carried out correctly. No different dummies were arranged for identification of each and every accused. Joint conduct of this test affected its correctness."
' The features of the unknown accused persons were also not described in the F.I.R. And it was only alleged that they could be identified if came in front of them. Although witnesses specified the role of accused during the identification parade but P.W.15 Abid Hussain Special Judicial Magistrate admitted during cross-examination that all the four witnesses did not mention the roles of the accused themselves and they had described so on his query. It is also pertinent to mention here that P. W.17 Muhammad Ashraf S.I. Admitted in his cross-examination that Ansar accused was not arrested in this case at the time of identification parade. In view of the above, the identification parade cannot be safely relied upon. As it is not free from doubts.
6. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses failed to establish any connection or relation between the co-accused (P.Os.) to whom the main role and the motive have been attributed and respondents Nos.1 to 4. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 denied the allegations levelled against them and stated that they were previously known by the complainant and the witnesses, which is established by the fact that they were introduced as accused without disclosing any source of information and mere statement of the complainant P.W.13 that he was told so by an unknown person who had neither been joined in the investigation nor produced as witness during the trial, is not sufficient to prove their guilt. The alleged recoveries of weapons of offence were insignificant, as there is no report of Forensic Science Laboratory regarding matching of crime empties and weapons of offence. Even the weapon of, offence shown to have been recovered from accused/respondent Ansar was relating to another case registered at Police Station Sadar Daska and nothing was recovered from him in this case. There is no evidence at all against Muhammad Ashraf respondent who was alleged to have facilitated the other accused except the information provided by an unknown person.
7 For what has been discussed above, the case against respondents Nos. 1 to 4 is full of doubts and there is no illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgment. It is settled principle of criminal dispensation of justice that when an accused is acquitted from a case after regular trial. He enjoys double presumption of innocence. We respectfully refer the case of Iftikhar Hussain and others v. The State (2004 SCM R 1185), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has 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."
' The same principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Azhar Ali v. The State (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 632) and the case of Haji Aman-ullah v. Munir Ahmed and others (2010 SCM R 222). Thus, we are quite convinced that the findings of the learned trial Court regarding acquittal of the respondents, are quite reasonable and based upon accepted principles of appreciation of evidence.
' Resultantly, appeal in hand is dismissed in limine.