Sadaqat Ali Khan, J.--This single judgment shall dispose of Criminal appeal No 631 of 2012 filed by Mahar Allah Yar appellant and Crl. Appeal No. 634 of 2012 filed by Muhammad Akram and Rana Dildar appellants (against their convictions), as both he above stated matters have arisen out of the same judgment dated 27.3.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-T errorism Court-II Multan, whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:- Mahar Allah Yar, Rana Dildar and Muhammad Akram appellants 1 u/S. 7 Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 They were sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years R.I. each along with fine Rs, 50,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one year S.I. each.
2 342, PPC They were sentenced to imprisonment for one year R.I. each.
(All the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently). However , appellants have been acquitted in offences u/S. 365-A and 324, PPC; whereas, their co-accused namely Muhammad Ali ASI, Azeem Moharrar and Muhammad Aslam were acquitted, in private complaint under Sections 365- A/506/348/342/340/337-F(i), L(ii), A(i)/324, PPC and 6,7-A TA 1997, police station, Ghalla Mandi, District Sahiwal.
2. After filing of private complaint, learned trial Court recorded the cursory evidence produced by the complainant and thereafter summoned the appellants and their co-accused (since acquitted) mentioned above to face trial.
3. Learned trial Court after observing legal formalities provided under the Criminal Procedure Code framed the charge against the appellants and their co-accused (since acquitted mentioned above, to which they pleaded not guilty and prosecution evidence was summoned.
4. Prosecution produced 5 PWs (PW1 to PW5). Medical evidence has been furnished by Dr. Muhammad Mushtaq PW3, who along with Dr . Junaid Shaami (not PW) medically examined Faiz Ahmad complainant PW 1.
5. On the other hand, statements of appellants along with their co-accused (since acquitted) were recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C., who refuted the allegations so leveled against them. The appellants neither opted to appear as witness under Section 340(2), Cr .P.C. nor produced any defence evidence.
6. After conclusion of the trial, learned trial Court while acquitting co-accused mentioned above, convicted the appellants with above said sentences. Hence these two appeals.
7. We have heard. the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned D.P.G assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, on perusing the record with their assistance observed as under:--
(i) Fayyaz Ahmad complainant PW1 on 21.6.201 1 filed private complaint against appellants and their co-accused Muhammad Ali ASI, Azeem Moharrar and Muhammad Aslam (since acquitted) stating therein that on 19.7.2009 he had gone to Sahiwal bazar to purchase some articles; on his return, he saw police Dala having been parked at Jogi Chowk, Sahiwal; Allah Yar S.I (appellant) stopped him, called police officials namely Akram Joyia and Rana Dildar (appellants) and asked them to search him; during search, Rs, 650/- and 1.1) card were recovered and he was asked to go; he protested before them and asked to return his amount, but they started abusing him, harsh words were exchanged; they put him in their Dala and took him in police post Ghalla Mandi, Sahiwal, thereafter , kept him in the garden owned by Fateh Muhammad Munshi (neither accused nor witness). During the said period, they were pressurizing him to make confession in theft and dacoity cases. Ubaid Ullah Sheikh Advocate PW2 along with his brother (not PW) approached the appella nts for his release, who demanded Rs, 2,000/- for not torturing him and they paid the said amount. The appellants also demanded Rs, 4,00,000/- for his release; However , appellants were agreed to receive Rs, 50,000/-for his release. He was sent to judicial lock-up in another fictitious case, but later on, he was released. The appellants have been acquitted in offences u/S. 365-A and 324, PPC by disbelieving the evidence of the complainant and his witnesses, but have been convicted in offences u/Sr 7(c) of Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 and 342, PPC. Muhammad Ali ASI, Azeem Moharrar and Muhammad Aslam co-accused of the appellants have also been acquitted by the Trial Court through impugned judgment, complainant/State has not filed any appeal against their acquittal. Muhammad Fayyaz complainant PW1 duly identified by his learned counsel (Mr. Ubaid Ullah Sheikh, Advocate), present in Court, submits that he has no objection on acceptance of both the appeals of the appellants and their acquittal. Even otherwise, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case, the story narrated by complainant is neither plausible nor believable. Muhammad , ASI, Azeem Moharrar and Muhammad Aslam co-accused of the appellants have been acquitted by the Trial Court through impugned judgment by disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution, same evidence cann ot be believed to the extent of appellants as the rule "falsus in uno falsu s in omnibus" is now integral part of our jurisprudence in criminal cases.
We respectfully refer the judgment dated 04.03.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan passed in Crl. Misc.
Application No, 200 of 2019 in (Crl. Appeal No, 238-L of 2013 in which it has been held in paras-21 & 22 as under .
"Therefore, in light of the discussion made above, we declare that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus shall henceforth be an integral part of our jurisprudence in criminal cases and the same shall be given effect to, followed and applied by all the Courts in the country in its letter and spirit. It is also directed that a witness found by a Court to have resorted to a deliberate falsehood on a material aspect, shall without any latitude, invariably by proceeded against for committing perjury .
22. The office of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar of all the High Courts in the country with a direction to send a copy of the .same to every Judge and Magistrate within the jurisdiction of each High Court handling criminal cases at all levels for their information and guidance."
8. For the foregoing reasons, both the above titled criminal appeals filed by Mahar Allah Yar, Muhammad Akram and Rana Dildar appellants are accep ted, convictions and sentences of the appellants (Mahar Allah Yar, Muhammad Akram and Rana Dildar) awarded by the Trial Court through impugned judgment are hereby set aside and they (Mahar Allah Yar, Muhammad Akram and Rana Dildar appellants) are acquitted of the charges. They are present on bail. Their sureties stand discharged.