' SHAKEEL AHMED BALOCH, J.---This Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23-8-2013, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta, whereby; the appellants were found guilty under section 302(b) read with 34, P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay compensation of Rs,200,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of the deceased, in default to further suffer six months' Si Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellants. The appellants were also convicted under section 337(D), P.P.C. And sentenced to suffer three years' imprisonment and to pay Rs,2,000 as Arsh to each victim. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellants.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 19-5-2000 a case vide F.I.R. No,114/2000 was registered in Police Station Civil Line, Quetta on the report of complainant Muhammad Shareef, alleging therein that on the said date at about 6-40 p.m., the appellants Inayatullah Niamatullah alias Niamo, Habibullah, Amanullah and Relimatullah and 7/8 other unknown persons attacked upon the complainant party with a pistol, dagger, knives, clips and sticks. The accused Amanullah opened fire, resultantly Muhammad Shafique and Ghulam Shabbir received bullet injuries. Similarly Muhammad Arif and Muhammad Bilal also received knife, dagger and stick injuries. Ghulam Shabbir succumbed to the injuries at Civil Hospital, Quetta. After completion of the investigation, the challan was submitted before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta. The charge was framed and read over to the appellants, to which they denied the allegation and claimed trial.
The prosecution in support of its case, produced sixteen witnesses, and also exhibited relevant documents. After conclusion of prosecution witnesses, the appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein they denied the allegations levelled against them. The appellants opted to record their statements under section 340(2) Cr.P.C., and produced two witnesses in their defence. On conclusion of the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.
3. It is to be noted that initially the appellants were arrested, and after completion of trial, they were convicted by Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta vide judgment dated 30-5-2003, under section 337-D, P.P.C. To three years each and to pay Arsh amount to each of the injured with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment, a Criminal Appeal No, 134 of 2003, Criminal Enhancement Petition No,144 of 2003 and Criminal Acquittal Appeal No,329 of 2003 were filed before this court respectively. Thereafter accused Nasrullah was arrested, and vide judgment 11-5-2006, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta, he was acquitted. Feeling aggrieved from the same, the State filed Criminal Acquittal Appeal No,195 of 2006. Meanwhile accused Rehmatullah was also arrested and vide order dated 29-11-2008, he was acquitted of the charge, as a result whereof, the complainant Muhammad Sharif also filed an Acquittal Appeal No,1 of 2009.
This court vide order dated 7-3-2012, decided all the above mentioned cases and set aside all the orders of trial Court and remanded back the case to the trial Court for rewriting of the judgment.
The trial Court after receiving the case file, proceeded with the matter and passed judgment dated 23-8-2013, whereby the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above, hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and material available on record. He further argued that no specific role has been assigned to the appellants nor the medical certificate supports the prosecution story to connect the appellants with the commission of the offence. The learned counsel further stated that no recovery of whatsoever nature has been recovered from the appellant and there are numerous contradictions amongst the statements of the prosecution witnesses, but the trial Court has failed to dilate upon the same, as such he prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.
5. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General opposed the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants and stated that the trial Court after proper appraisal of the evidence and material available on record, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, as such, the impugned judgment is a result of proper appreciation of the fact and the material available on record, needs no interference.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The case of the prosecution is that on 19-5-2000, the appellants and 7/8 unknown persons armed with dagger, knife, clip and sticks along with absconding accused Ammanullah who was armed with pistol, attacked upon the complainant party. Meanwhile accused Ammanullah started firing, and Muhammad Shafique and Ghulam Shabir received bullet injuries, thereafter his companions attacked upon Arif and Bilal and got injured them, as a result whereof, Ghulam Shabir succumbed to the injuries. The complainant Muhammad Shareef appeared as P.W.1 and specifically mentioned that absconding accused Ammanullah made fire over deceased Ghulam Shabir and Muhammad Shafiq, and got injured them and thereafter his companion attacked upon Bilal and Arif. Dr. Fareed Ahmed appeared before the trial Court as P.W.5. According to him the deceased Ghulam Shabir received the following injuries:--
(i) Circular wound on left side of hypchandria internal;
(ii) Exit wound at the right side of hypochandria, ' The injuries are stated to have been caused by fire-arm. Similarly as per P.W.6 Dr. Nazir Ahmed, the P.W.3 Muhammad Shafique (injured) received the following injuries:--
(i) Bullet injury with exit;
(ii) Gun-shot bullet entrance;
(iii) Gun-shot wound on left hand.
7. According to the above stated circumstances, the deceased and injured Muhammad Shafique received fire-arm injuries, and this fact has further been confirmed by the complainant and the other eye-witnesses that Ammanullah (absconding accused) holding pistol made firing. Except absconding accused Ammanullah, no role with regard to making firing has been given to any of the appellants. Muhammad Bilal appeared as P.W.2 who during cross-examination stated that Habibullah, Niamatullah and Mohiuddin were having sticks in their hand present there. To a question further stated that he received clip hit on his left eye, and also received stick's injuries on his body. Dr. Sarfaraz Jamali, appeared before the trial Court as P.W.7. He in his statement stated that injured Bilal Ahmed son of Bashir Ahmed was brought to him for medical treatment. He examined the injured and found the following injuries on his body:--
(1) Abrasion on the left upper eye brow 1/2 c.m x 1/2 c.m.
(2) Left eye swelling and ecchymosed.
8. According to medical certificate there in no injury on the other parts of the body of the injured except on the left eye, which the injured himself admitted that he received clip hit on his left eye. It is also alleged by the injured that the appellants having in their hands sticks, but the medical certificate do not show further injury which was caused by means of sticks.
9. As far as section 34, P.P.C. Is concerned, to determine the act of the appellants with regard to the furtherance of their common intention in the case it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision of section 34, P.P.C. As under:--
(34) Act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When a criminal act is done by several persons, in C furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
10. As stated above, in furtherance of common intention, when an act is done by several persons, each of such person is liable for that act which is done by him. In the circumstances, there is no direct evidence against the appellants regarding sustaining injuries to the deceased, injured Muhammad Shafique and Muhammad Bilal, nor any recovery of whatsoever nature has been effected from any of the appellants to involve them in the commission of the offence under section 34, P.P.C. There are material contradictions amongst the statements of the prosecution witnesses and there is nothing on record connecting the appellants with the commission of the offence, which creates doubt, benefit whereof is extended in favour of the appellants. The trial Court has not properly appreciated such aspect of the case in its true perspective, as such, has come to a wrong conclusion. The learned counsel for the appellants has successfully been able to make out a case for acquittal of the appellants of the charge.
' Thus, in view of what has been stated and discussed hereinabove, the appeal is accepted.
' These are the reasons of our short order dated 22-10-2013, whereby the impugned judgment dated 23-8-2013, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Quetta was set aside and the appellants Inayatullah son of Babu Muhammad Anwar, Mohiuddin (Moenuddin) son of Hameed Shah, Niamatullah son of Muhammad Din and Habibullah son of Muhammad Anwar, were acquitted of the charge.