' SARDAR AHMED NAEEM, J.---Mubarik Ali, the petitioner along-with his co-accused was tried by the Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore Cantt: in case FIR No,220 dated 10.6.2014 under sections 337-A(i), 337- A(ii), 337-L(2), 147,148, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Batapur, Lahore.
2. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 12.12.2011 acquitted Umer Hayat, Shukar Hayat and Muhammad Ilyas (co-accused of the petitioner), convicted and sentenced the petitioner along- with his accused, namely, Muhammad Amir as follows: ' Mubarik Ali petitioner
(i) under section. 337-A(ii), P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and was held liable to pay Arsh of ve per cent of Diyat ' Amir accused
(ii) under section 3374(2), P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year and was held liable to pay Daman of Rs,5000/- ' Benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P. C. Was also extended to them.
3. On appeal, Muhammad Amir was acquitted. The appeal was dismissed with the modification in the sentence awarded to the petitioner, which is as under:-- "Appeal was dismissed with the modification to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
However, the Diyat as ordered by the learned trial Court was maintained. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to him."
4. The facts, in brief are that the complainant sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioner as well as his co-accused. The matter was reported to police.
5. After usual investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court. The petitioner/co-accused were formally charge sheeted. The parties, both, led their respective evidence and the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted/sentenced the petitioner. The learned Court of appeal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner with the modification detailed above. Now, this revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no independent witness was cited by the prosecution; that prosecution witnesses were at variance on material aspect of the matter; that co-accused 'of the petitioner have been acquitted on the same set of evidence and no independent corroboration was forthcoming to the extent of the petitioner; that the parties were inimical towards each other on account of previous litigation; that the case of the prosecution was replete with doubts and that the benefit of doubt was the vested right of the accused, thus, he was entitled to be acquitted.
7. Learned DDPP, maintained the validity of the impugned judgment.
8. Arguments heard. Record, perused.
9. The occurrence in this case took place on 10.6.2004 at 6.00 a.m. Within the area of Mauza "Bhamma". The complainant was intercepted by the accused including the petitioner, who, allegedly was armed with a danda. The complainant, Binyamin and Muhammad Ashiq PWs have assigned a role of causing danda on the head of the complainant. Muhammad Shabbir appeared as PW.4 and deposed that the occurrence took place on 06.6.2004 and that' the head injury was inflicted by Muhammad Amir co-accused, then armed with hatchet. The complainant also have not attributed a specific injury to the petitioner in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C.
He was confronted with his statement and it was found correct. The complainant as well as the eye witnesses including Binyamin and Muhammad Ashiq have neither mentioned some date nor month or year of the occurrence. The complainant happened to be the paternal uncle of Binyamin, whereas, Muhammad Ashiq PW.3 was the real brother of the complainant. Admittedly, the parties were locked into litigation on account of landed dispute.
' The co-accused of the petitioner including Umer Hyat, Shukar Hayat and Muhammad Ilyas were found innocent during the investigation and ultimately were acquitted by the learned trial Court.
The conviction-sentence awarded to Muhammad Amir co-accused was set aside by the learned appellate Court. No independent corroboration is forthcoming to support the eye witnesses mentioned above. They failed to provide the complete details regarding the occurrence, in particular, the date, time, month and year. As a matter of fact, the prosecution is always bound to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. Though the complainant bearing the stamp of injuries but that stamp only indicates his presence at the relevant time and has got no guarantee of truthfulness. In criminal jurisprudence, where the rule of appreciation of evidence is that want of interest or absence of enmity does not stamp the statement by a particular witness with presumption of truth and that much depends on the intrinsic value of a statement of a witness. The real test is, as to whether the statement of a witness is in consonance with the probabilities, whether it fits in with the other evidence and it inspires confidence in the mind: Ref- "Muhammad lqbal v. The State" (1984 SCM R 930), "Muhammad Arshad alias Achhi v. The. State" (1995 SCM R 1639), "Haroon alias Harooni v. The State and another" (1995 SCM R 1627) It is also fundamental principle of jurisprudence, that is, to disbelieve a witness, it is not necessary that there will be numerous infirmities. If there is one, which impeaches the credibility of the witness, that may make the entire statement doubtful. It has been now, settled that the conviction must be based on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt and any doubt C arising in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favour of the accused. Reliance in this regard is pliced on "Muhammad Khan and another v. The State" (1999 SCM R 1220)
10. For what has been discussed above and after scanning the evidence from all angles, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the petitioner through unimpeachable ocular testimony. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond any shadow of doubt, thus the conviction of the D petitioner cannot be maintained. Resultantly, while extending benefit of doubt to the petitioner, this petition is accepted. Conviction-sentence awarded to the petitioner is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the charges. The sentence awarded to the petitioner was suspended by.This Court on 26.4.2012. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged.