This is an appeal by leave before the Supreme Court challenging the appellant's conviction and life sentence for murder under Section 302(b) PPC, read with Section 149 PPC. The core legal question involved a reappraisal of evidence, specifically concerning the identification of the accused in a night occurrence, the non-production of natural and independent injured witnesses, unexplained injuries sustained by the appellant and co-accused, and the lack of independent corroboration. The Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from material doubts, including the absence of secured electric light, non-production of crucial witnesses leading to an adverse inference, and inconsistencies regarding motive and weapon recovery. The Court also noted that the High Court had itself concluded it was a case of a free fight without premeditation. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of doubt, emphasizing that such benefit must be given when the prosecution's story is doubted in material particulars and corroboration is lacking.
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Haroon Shafique appellant and some others had allegedly murdered one Zeeshan Kashif and had injured Muhammad Ashraf complainant (PW3) in an incident taking place at about 08.30 p.m. on 25.11.2007 in Chak No, 196/GB in the area of Police Station Saddar Sumandri, District Faisalabad in the backdrop of a motive according to which the accused party belonged to a group of vagabonds and used to receive Jagga tax and on the relevant occasion Zeeshan Kashif deceased had refused to pay such tax to the accused party.
With these allegations the appellant and his co-accused were booked in case FIR No, 700 registered at the above mentioned Police Station during the same night and after a regular trial the appellant was convicted by the trial court for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. read with section 149, P.P.C. and was sentenced to death and to pay compensation besides having been convicted and sentenced for offences under sections 148 and 337-L(2), P.P.C. read with section 149, P.P.C. The appellant challenged his convictions and sentences before the High Court through an appeal which was partly allowed, the appellant's convictions and sentences for the offences under sections 148 and 337-L(2), P.P.C. read with section 149, P.P.C. were set aside, his conviction for the offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. was upheld but his sentence of death for the said offence was reduced by the High Court to imprisonment for life. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 24.01.2017.
2. Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.
3. The occurrence in this case had taken place during a night and although the prosecution had mentioned availability of electric light at the spot yet admittedly no electric bulb had been secured during the investigation of this case. The occurrence had taken place at the Dera of one Muhammad Ashraf Numberdar but admittedly he had not been produced by the prosecution before the trial court. Muhammad Ashraf Numberdar and his son namely Muhammad Javed had also been injured during the selfsame incident yet despite being natural and independent A witnesses both of them had not been produced by the prosecution during the trial giving rise to an adverse inference that had they entered the witness-box they would have deposed against the prosecution. The record of the case shows that during the same incident the present appellant and his co-accused namely Adnan Zamir had also been injured and they had received injuries on vital parts of their bodies but the actual circumstances in which such injuries had been caused to the appellant and his co-accused had never been divulged by the prosecution or explained by it.
Almost all the co-accused of the appellant, attributed effective roles, had been acquitted by the High Court and, thus, the appellant could not have been convicted and sentenced without independent corroboration. In that backdrop we have noticed that the High Court itself had concluded that no independent proof regarding the alleged motive had been adduced by the prosecution before the trial court and that the alleged recovery of a pistol from the appellant's custody during the investigation was legally inconsequential because the crime-empties had been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after the alleged recovery, of a pistol from the appellant's possession. Post-mortem examination of the deadbody of Zeeshan Kashif had been conducted after about fifteen hours of his death giving rise to an inference that time had been consumed by the complainant party and the local police in cooking up a story for the prosecution and in procuring and planting eyewitnesses. According to the Post-mortem Examination Report the firearm injury received by the deceased had tattooing around it whereas the site-plan of the place of occurrence showed the distance between the appellant and the deceased as five feet.
The High Court had itself concluded in so many words that it was a case of a free fight which had taken place at the spur of the moment without any premeditation. This shows that the High Court had not believed the story of the prosecution in its material particulars and had doubted the veracity of the eye-witnesses and their version of the incident. In these circumstances the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant and it is so extended. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the High Court are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to him. The appellant has already been admitted to bail by the Lahore High Court, Lahore upon suspension of his sentence during the pendency of the present appeal. His bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged.