This matter concerned a criminal appeal by Munir Ahmad against his conviction for murder and attempted murder, and a cross-petition by the complainant challenging the acquittal of co-accused and the alteration of Munir Ahmad's death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether evidence disbelieved for co-accused could be relied upon against the appellant without strong independent corroboration, considering the non-applicability of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus." The Supreme Court held that while the principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" is not applicable and courts must sift grain from chaff, if a set of witnesses is disbelieved for acquitted co-accused, their evidence can only be believed against the appellant if strong independent corroboration exists. Finding no such corroboration, particularly after the appellate court disbelieved recovery and motive, the Supreme Court concluded there was no credible evidence against Munir Ahmad and acquitted him by extending the benefit of doubt. The complainant's petition was consequently dismissed.
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Munir Ahmed petitioner was indicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nankana Sahib, in case FIR No,253/2006 dated 21.07.2006 offence under sections 302, 324, 337-F(vi), 148 and 149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Syedwala, District Nankana Sahib.
Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the FIR (Exh.PB) chalked out directly on the statement of Muhammad Yousaf complainant (PW.2) in the Police Station are that complainant was a school teacher by profession. On the day of occurrence i,e, 21.7.2006 at about Asar Waela. he along with Muhammad Younas brother (PW.4), Munir Ahmed, cousin, Asif Raza son (injured PW.3) and Kazim Raza (since deceased) was present in his house. Upon hearing knock at outer door, Kazim Raza (since deceased) proceeded towards the gate. Upon uproar raised by Kazim Raza, the complainant along with his brother Muhammad Younas (PW.4), his cousin Munir Ahmed and son Asif Raza (PW.3) rushed following him and saw Munir Ahmed (appellant) armed with repeater .12 bore, Khurshid Ahmed (since acquitted) armed with rifle, Ibrahim (since acquitted) armed with rifle, Aslam (since acquitted) armed with rifle along with two unknown persons (one armed with pistol and the other armed with rifle) dragging Kazim Raza who was brought to chowk and within their view, Munir Ahmed (appellant), Khurshid Ahmed, Abdul Jabbar and Ibrahim inflicted firearm injuries with their respective weapons which landed on different parts of body of Kazim Raza (since deceased) who fell down. Asif Raza (PW.3) when proceeded ahead he was fired at by Muhammad Aslam by his rifle which landed upon knee of his left leg who fell down after sustaining said fire shot.
Upon hue and cry raised by the complainant, Munir Ahmed and Muhammad Younas (PWs) Munk Ahmed (appellant), Khurshid Ahmed, Ibrahim and Muhammad Aslam along with two unidentified persons by resorting to firing decamped from the place of occurrence.
2. After regular trial, the learned trial court convicted Munir Ahmad appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. and he was sentenced to death. He was also held liable to make the payment of Rs,100,000/- (rupees one hundred thousand only) as compensation as required under section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure to be paid to the legal heirs of Kazim Raza (deceased) failing which he had to further undergo S.I for a term of six months. The appellant was also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. read with section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' RI for attempting to commit murder of Asif Raza (injured PW) and was also held liable to pay Rs,20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) as a fine failing which he had to further undergo S.I for a term of six months. All the sentences awarded to the appellant were ordered to run concurrently. Through the same judgment, Khurshid Ahmed alias Rashid was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. arid sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also held liable to make payment of Rs,100,000/- (rupees one hundred thousand only) as compensation as required under section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure failing which he had to undergo S.I for a term of six months. He was also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. read with section 337-F(vi), P.P.C. and sentenced to seven years' RI for attempting to commit murder of Asif Raza (injured PW) and was also held liable to pay Rs,20000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) as fine failing which he had to further undergo SI for a term of six months. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure was extended to him. Through the same judgment Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Aslam were acquitted of the charges while extending them benefit of doubt. The learned trial court sent Murder Reference No, 549 of 2009 for confirmation or otherwise of the sentence of death awarded to Munir Ahmad (appellant). Feeling dissatisfied with their conviction and sentence Munir Ahmad and Khurshid Ahmad filed Crl. Appeal No,1659 of 2009 whereas Muhammad Yousaf complainant petitioner instituted Crl Appeal No,1954 of 2009 against acquittal of Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Aslam and also Crl. Revision No,1005 of 2009 against Khurshid Ahmad for enhancement of his sentence to the death penalty. All these matters were heard together by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which through the impugned judgment dismissed Crl. Revision and Criminal Appeal filed by the complainant whereas the Criminal Appeal filed by the convicts was partly allowed. Khurshid Ahmad was acquitted of the charges framed against him.
Sentence of death awarded to Munir Ahmad (appellant) by the learned trial court was, however, altered to imprisonment for life. The amount of compensation imposed upon him and imprisonment in default thereof was also maintained. His conviction and sentence under section 324, P.P.C. read with section 337F(vi), P.P.C. was maintained. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. He was, however, awarded the benefit of section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure.
Judgment of the Lahore High Court was assailed by Munir Ahmad through Jail Petition No,161/2015 wherein leave was granted vide order dated 19.06.2018 for reappraisal of evidence in this case for safe administration of justice whereas Muhammad Yousaf (complainant) has also filed Crl. P.L.A.
No,272-L/2015.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant appointed on State expense, learned Additional Prosecutor General Punjab for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the relevant record.
4. As stated in para 1 above, four persons including Munir Ahmad (appellant) were nominated in the FIR. Out of them three namely Munir Ahmad, Khurshid and Ibrahim were attributed joint role of firing at the deceased. Firearm injury on the person of Asif Raza injured was attributed to Muhammad Aslam. Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Aslam were acquitted by the learned trial court and Criminal Appeal No,1954 of 2009 filed by the complainant against their acquittal was dismissed by the learned appellate court, which has not been assailed any further either by the complainant or by the State. Khurshid Ahmad was acquitted by the learned appellate court. The question which requires consideration by this Court is as to whether the evidence which has been disbelieved to the extent of three co-accused of the appellant who have been acquitted by the learned courts below can be believed to the extent of the appellant? By now it is well settled that principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in our system designed for dispensation of justice in criminal cases and courts are required to sift grain from the chaff in order to reach at a just conclusion. If some independent and strong corroboration is available the set of witnesses which has been disbelieved to the extent of acquitted co-accused of the appellant can be believed to the extent of the appellant. Keeping this golden principle in mind, we have gone through the entire record.
5. The evidence produced by the prosecution can be bifurcated into the following categories:-
(i) Ocular Account
(ii) Medical Evidence
(iii) Recovery of Repeater
(iv) Motive Now we discuss these pieces of evidence.
6. In the FIR as well as before the learned trial court Muhammad Yousaf complainant (PW.2), Asif Raza injured (PW.3) and Muhammad Younas (PW.4) raised their accusing fingers not only against the appellant but also against his three acquitted accused namely Khurshid Ahmed alias Rashid, Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Aslam by attributing role of firing. While furnishing medical evidence Dr. Shabbir Ahmad (PW.10) and Dr. Khalid Rafiq (PW.14) stated that there were firearm injuries on the persons of Kazim Raza (deceased) and Asif Raza injured. The learned Appellate Court has disbelieved the evidence of recovery of Repeater and motive in paras 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment for valid reasons. Therefore, there is no independent corroboration against the appellant as far as the ocular account and medical evidence is concerned. Upon our own evaluation of the material before us we do not find any reason to take any exception for the reasons assigned .by the learned appellate court for disbelieving these pieces of evidence .
7. For the foregoing, in our attempt to sift grain from the chaff, we have concluded that there is chaff and chaff in this case and not a grain to sift. Therefore, while extending benefit of doubt Munir Ahmad (appellant) is also acquitted of the charges framed against him. He is behind the bars and ordered to be released forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.
Crl. PLA No,272-L/2015
8. Since we have acquitted Munir Ahmad respondent No,1 by extending him benefit of doubt, therefore, there is no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.