' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---Fazal Hakeem, accused/ respondent, was involved in case FIR No. 74 dated 1.4.1996, registered under section 302/324/337-A PPC at Police Station, Pir Baba, on the charges that he on 1.4.1996 at 1430 hours committed the murder of Ibrahim besides causing injury to complainant Ismaeel and PW Shams by firing at them. After completion of investigation, complete challan against him was submitted before Court. Learned Sessions Judge/Zilla Qazi, Bunir, after supplying the copies of relevant documents u/s 265-C Cr.P.C. To the accused, charge sheeted him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After commencement of trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined seven PWs. After conclusion of trial, accused was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he claimed innocence and false implication in the case, however, he was neither ready to be examined on oath nor wished to produce defence. Learned trial court after hearing the parties, acquitted the accused vide judgment dated 25.11.1997. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment of trial Court the State through Advocate General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, filed criminal appeal No. 97 in year 1998.
2. Learned AAG appearing on behalf of the State contended that a single accused has been charged by the complainant in promptly lodged report and his version is fully corroborated by the testimony of injured witness, Shams, PW-5, coupled with the testimony of Investigating Officer, PW- 7, Medical Officer, PW-1, recovery of shotgun, revolver, four empties of 12 bore, an empty of 32 bore and FSL report but the learned trial court acquitted him due to mis-appreciation of evidence on record and as such, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondent/accused may be convicted in accordance with law.
3. As against that learned counsel for the respondent/accused supported the impugned judgment and contended that the respondent, though, is charged in the FIR but the evidence produced by the prosecution is not of such a character which could be based for conviction of the accused, therefore, the impugned judgment is well reasoned and needs no interference by this Court.
4. We have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record.
5.The record would reflect that there is delay in lodging of the report as the occurrence is allegedly taken place on 1.4.1996 at 14.30 hours while the report has been lodged on the same day at 15.30 hours in A the hujra of one Shahzada, whereas the distance between place of occurrence and Police Post was one and half kilometer. Complainant, Ismaeel, appeared as PW-4 and deposed that the deceased after receipt of injury, was shifted from the spot to hospital by the people after 3/4 minutes. He deposed that after the occurrence, he started for the hospital and after one hour on his way the police met with him and he narrated the story to them. He next deposed that sufficient people were present with him at the time of report and the distance between place of occurrence and hujra of Shahzada, where he lodged report, is 100 feet. He next stated that they had not informed the local police of Police Post, Jawar, and at the time of report Shams (PW-4) and Muhammad were present with him in the baitak. He further deposed that he handed over the shotgun to the thanidar and reached to the hospital at 4.00 p.m. He deposed that he and Shams went to the hospital together and after fifteen minutes they came back to the hujra of Shahzada.
He stated that statements of Shams and Muhammad were recorded by thanidar in the baitak after recording his report. Shams when appeared as PW-5, completely negated the statement, of PW-4 and deposed that at the time of report, he was not present with Ismaeel rather was present in his house. He further deposed that he went to hospital at 6.30 p.m. All alone and from hospital straightaway came back home and from home he was summoned by the thanidar and his statement was recorded. He stated that after the occurrence he went to his house, changed his clothes and remained present in his house till 7.00 p.m. He stated that the police was not informed regarding the occurrence. Taj Muhammad, Head constable, appeared as PW-6, who contradicted the testimony of both the alleged eyewitnesses and deposed that sufficient people had come to Police Post, Jowr, for reporting the matter. He further deposed that the people had come for lodging the report at 1/2.00 p.m to the Police Post, however, the dead body of the deceased was not brought by them. Saif ur Rehman, PW-7, who has recorded report of complainant in shape of Murasilla and investigated the case, deposed in his first line of his cross examination that he was present in PP when village people came and informed him about the occurrence. He admitted that the Murasilla and some of the recovery memos are not in his hand writing, however, he was not in a position to disclose the name of the person, who drafted the Murasilla and recovery memos.
Statement of Sultan ul Mulk, Medical Officer, was recorded as PW-1, who deposed that he examined the dead body of deceased at 4.00 p.m while Ismaeel complainant was examined at 6.00 p.m.
Whereas the other injured witness Shams was examined at 6.30 p.m: Had the complainant and PW Shams been present on the spot with the deceased, they could have shifted the injured Ibrahim to hospital to save his life or even Police Post, situated at a distance of one and half k.m. From the place of occurrence, for lodging the report. Similarly, had complainant and PW-5 been received injuries in the incident, they would have gone to hospital for their treatment or Police Post, situated on the way leading to hospital from their houses, but they remained at home till 6/7.00 p.m. In their house.
' The above discussion would lead one to the conclusion that the occurrence has not taken place in the mode and manner as alleged by the prosecution and FIR has been lodged with considerable deliberation and consultation and after preliminary investigation.
6. Though, complainant and Shams, the alleged eyewitnesses bearing the stamp of injuries but mere presence of stamp of injuries on their persons is not a yardstick for determining their truthfulness or falsehood because the testimony of injured witness is also to be tested on the principles applied for appreciation of any other prosecution witness and it is basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that to disbelieve a witness, it is not necessary that there should be numerous infirmities and if there is one which impeaches the credibility of the witness that may make the entire statement doubtful.
7. The recovery of shotgun, revolver and four empties of 12 bore from the roof of the room have also not been established in accordance with law because according to Murasilla, the accused made one fire from the roof of the room and PW-2 also deposed that the accused had made two fire shots from the roof of the room but the I.O. Recovered four empties of 12 bore from the spot. Taj Muhammad, PW-6, deposed that he signed the memo in Police Post, Jowar.
8. The overall discussion given above leaves no hesitation to hold that the findings of the trial Court have been based on proper appreciation of evidence on record. It is settled law that accused is presumed to be innocent in law and if after regular trial he is acquitted he earns a double presumption of innocence and heavy onus lies on the prosecution to rebut such presumption.
Wisdom is derived from the case of Muhammad Shall v. Muhammad Raza and another reported in 2008 SCM R 329 and Muhammad Yaqoob v. Manzoor Hussain and 3 others reported in 2008 SCM R 1549. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and if any single and slightest doubt is created, its benefit has to go to the accused. So, the trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused-respondent on valid and cogent reasons by correctly appreciating the evidence on record and his acquittal does not call for any interference by this Court.
' For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal being without substance is dismissed.