Anwaar-ul-Haq Pannun, J.--Through this single judgment, we propose to decide Criminal Appeal No. 868-J of 2012 filed by the appellant against his conviction and Criminal Revision No. 80/2013 filed by the complainant/petitioner for enhancement of sentence of the convict, as both have arisen out of the same judgment dated 15.12.2012, passed, on the conclu sion of a trial, in case FIR No. 174, dated 18.06.2012, for offences under Sections 324/336-B/337-A(i)/337- A(iii)/337-F(i), PPC and under Section 7 (a) of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997, registered at Police Station Chhab Kalan, District Khanewal, by the learned Judg e, Anti-T errorism Court, Multan, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-- Under Section 336-B, PPC "Imprisonment of 14(fourteen) years R.I on three counts with a fine of One Million Rupees on three counts and in case of non-payment of fine, the convict shall undergo six months S.I on three counts".
(Injuries on the person of Mst. Abida Bibi). "Under Section 337-A(i), PPC Sentenced to two years as T azir and he shall also be liable to pay "Daman " amounting to Rs.30,000I- Under Section 337-F(i), PPC Sentenced to one year as T azir and he shall also be liable to pay "Daman " amounting to Rs.30,000I-.
The "Daman " amounts were to be paid by the convict to Mst. Abida Bibi injured (PW -5)."
(Injuries on the person of Mst. Zainab minor) "Under Section 337-A(i), PPC Sentenced to two years as T azir and he shall also be liable to pay "Daman" amounting to Rs.30,000/-.
Under Section 337-F(T), PPC Sentenced to one year as T azir and he shall also be liable to Pay "Daman "amounting to Rs.30,0001 -.
"The "Daman" amounts were to be paid by the convict to Mst. Zainab Bibi, minor through her natural guardian."
"All the sentences awarded to the convict shall run concurrently . The convict is entitled for benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C."
2. The prosecution's story unfolded throu gh F.I.R. (Exh.PC/1) lodged on the written complaint (Exh.PC) of Saddar Din complainant (PW-3), is to the effect that on the intervening night of 16/17.06.2012, when his son Liaquat Ali, daughter-in-law Mst. Abida Bibi and grand-daughter Mst. Zainab were sleeping outside the boundary wall of their cattle-pen, some unknown persons had thrown acid on them.
Later-on, the complainant through his supplementary statement implicated the accused/appellant along-with one Muhammad Saeed @ Kashi (since discharged from the case).
The motive behind the occurrence was that Muhammad Arshad accused had visiting terms with Mst. Sajida cousin of Liaquat Ali (PW-4) who restrained him from visiting Mst. Sajida whereupon he felt angry and sprinkled acid upon Liaquat Ali, Mst. Abida and Mst. Zainab (minor) and seriously wounded them.
3. Registration of the case, after its usual investigation, encapsulated into a report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. which was duly submitted before the learned trial Court, the appellant, after supplying him with the copies of incriminating material under Section 265-C, Cr.P.C., when charge sheeted, he while professing innocence, pleaded not guilty , and claimed trial, thereupon prosecution was directed to produce evidence.
4. The prosecution has produced as many as eleven witnesses besides tendering, in evidence, report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore as Exh.PM.
5. On 17.06.2012, Dr. Muhammad Akbar , C.M.O. at THQ Hospital Mianchannu, District Khanewal (PW-1), medically examined the injured Liaquat Ali and observed as under:-- Description of Injuries
1. Burn mark over whole of face.
2. Burn mark on front and left side of neck.
3. Burn mark on whole of front of chest.
4. Burn mark on upper half of front of abdomen.
5. Burn mark on whole of back of left chest.
6. Burn mark on whole of left buttock.
7. Burn mark on whole of front of left thigh.
8. Burn mark on front of penis.
9. Burn mark on front of testes.
10. Burn mark on upper half of front of right thigh.
11. Burn mark on whole of front and sides of left leg.
12. Burn mark on whole of front of right leg.
The probable time of injuries was 16 to 18 hours. All the injuries were caused with acid.
According to the expert opinion by Registrar Surgical Unit No. 3, Nishtar Hospital Multan, the injured Liaquat Ali has 46% of burn over the face, chest, abdomen and on limbs. Patient treated conservatively . As there is keloid formation and permanent disfigurement, so the Injuries Nos. 1 to 12 are declared as "Itlaf-i-Salahiyyat-i-udw" falls under Section 336, PPC.
6. Dr. Benazir Sajid, WMO(PW -9) medically examined Mst. Abida Bibi and observed the following injuries on her person.
Superficial burns involving most of the face, small area on the front of the base of the neck, upper part of front of chest, small area on the left lateral trunk, most of the front left leg, small area on the lateral aspect of left thigh, small area on the front of right upper arm, small area on the back of right leg, surrounding skin was hperemic. No pus was visible. Estimated percentage of chemical burns 28 to 30%. All the injuries were kept under observation for clinical assessment.
These burns were caused by some, chemical. Duration of injury was within 24 hours.
According to examination/scar distribution, burns on the head and neck were declared as under Section 337-A(i), PPC and burns on the rest of body as 337-F(i), PPC.
Dr. Benazir Sajid, WMO (PW-9) also medically examined Mst. Zainab and observed the following injuries on her person.
Superficial burns involving left side of the face and small area just proximal to the wrist, surrounding skin was hyperemic. Estimated percentage of chemical burns 5 to 8%. All the injuries were kept under observation for clinical assessment.
These burns were caused by some chemical. Duration of injury was within 24 hours.
7. The ocular account in this case has been furnished by Saddar Din, complainant (PW-3), Liaquat Ali, injured (PW- 6) and Mst. Abida Bibi; injured (PW-5). Muhammad Akram Inspector (PW-10) is Investigating Officer of the case.
Muhammad Ajmal 424/C (PW-7) is the recovery witness of the motorcycle and acid bottle (P-7), which were taken into possession by the I.O. vide recovery memo. (Exh.PF). The evidence of rest of the witnesses is formal in nature, therefore, avoiding repetition, its detail is not given.
8. When examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied every bit of incriminating material produced against him. While replying the question as to why this case against him and why the prosecution witnesses had deposed against him, he stated as under: "Infact, some unknown persons in darkness of night injured Liaquat, his wife and their daughter by sprinkling acid.
Some persons were apprehended by police on suspicion but were got released by Mst. Abida PW. The PWs suspected affair of Mst. Sajida with me and I was named on suspicion after deliberation and preliminary investigation. PWs are inter se related."
9. The appellant neither opted to appear under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor has produced any defence evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence the aforementioned criminal appeal as well as criminal revision petition.
10. Arguments heard. Record perused.
11. Initially the FIR was lodged against two unknown accused persons. The name of the present appellant came on surface through supplementary statemen t of the complainant (PW-3), whereas co-accused Muhammad Saeed alias Kashi was discharged from the case by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 18.10.2012. The complainant (PW-3) stated that during said night, at about 11/12 a.m., he received information that some unknown persons had thrown acid on Liaquat Ali, Mst. Abida Bibi and Mst. Zainab Bibi. On that information, he alongwith Khadim Hussain and Khalid PWs reache d the spot where they noticed that Liaquat Ali, Mst. Abida Bibi and minor Mst. Zainab Bibi had received acid bum injuries on their bodies. He further deposed that Liaquat Ali injured disclosed to them that one unknown accused after sprinkling acid upon them succeeded to decamp from the spot.
The foot prints of one person were found available around the cots of above said three injured. They also noticed the foot prints of another person as well as the prints of the tyres of motorbike near the cots of the injured PWs.
During cross-examination, he deposed that "My son Liaquat the injured informed me through mobile phone about the occurrence. When I came at the spot I found my son lying unconscious". In next breath, he stated that "I was informed about the occurrence a son namely Imran of my cousin. Imran told me that Arshad and Kasi poured acid on my son Liaquat." The said Imran has not been produced in the witness box by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. Furthermore, the complainant (PW-3) during cross-examination deposed that "Khadim Hussain my brother and Khalid my nephew had already reached at the place of occur rence before my reaching." He deposed that the police caught Khalid as suspect of the case and took with them. Volunteered that he has no connection with the case. He admitted it correct that "my daughter in law Abida protested and said if Khalid was caught she would not cooperate in investigation of this case. It is correct that on the protest of Abida, the police released Khalid". The aforesaid PWs were also not produced by the prosecution in the witness box.
12. On the other hand, Liqauat Ali, injure d (PW-4) deposed that at 11 night, he heard a noise and awoke from his sleep, he saw Arshad accused present in Court standing with a box in the light of lantern; he raised "lalkara " and told him to be ready for death and from the box in his hand he sprinkled acid on him, his wife Abida and his daughter Zainab; accused Arshad was on visiting terms with household of his uncle Khadim Hussain PW; he stopped him from the visits; he fell unco nscious at the spot after receiving acid burns injuries and was taken to THQ Hospital, Mian Channu. The lantern in the light of which, the injured (PW-4) identified the accused was neither taken into possession by the I.O. nor the same has been produced by the compla inant before him. During cross- examination, the injured (PW-4) stated that "I told my father the incident after 21.06.20 12. I told him about two/three days from 21.06.2012." Mst. Abida Bibi, injured (PW-5) during cross-examination deposed that "when my father in law Saddar Din came at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence, I told him that acid had been thrown by Arshad accused present in Court. Liaquat Ali, injured (PW-4) deposed that he came to his house from hospital on 21.06.2012; the police Inspector Akram Khan came to him at his house and recorded his statement. Whereas Mst.
Abida Bibi, another injured (PW-5) stated during cross-examination that she did record her statement before the Investigating Officer on 18.06.2012 when he was present at her home. She further deposed that she did not tell police about the name of Arshad in her statement. Volunteered that name of Arshad was told to her by her husband four/five days after recording her statement on 18.06.2012. Dr. Muhammad Akbar , CMO (PW-1) deposed that on 17.06.2012, he medically examined the injured Liaquat Ali and under the head of General Physical Examination , the injured was conscious fully oriented in time and space but the I.O. did not record his statement in the hospital and thereafter recorded his statement on 21.06.2012. The parties are known to each-other . It is astonishing to note here that Arif Zaman ASI (PW-2) during cross-examination deposed that "Liaquat Ali came to me on 17.06.2012 at Police Station. He was accompanied with his wife and daughter . He himself spoken and told his name as Liaquat Ali son of Saddar Din". "Despite this fact, the I.O. did not record their statements. Moreover , in view of above, it is concluded that had both the injured PWs informed the complainant that Arshad had committed the alleged occurrence, he would had implicated the accused/appellant immediately in the alleged occurrence by lodging FIR instead of lodging it against unknown accused persons. This fact creates serious doubts about the veracity of prosecution's case.
13. So far as recovery of acid bottle (P-7) is concerned, Muhammad Ajmal 424/C (PW-7) deposed that on 26.07.2012, the accused/appellant made disclosure, led the police party to his residence where he produced motorcycle and acid bottle containing little quantity of acid (P-7), which were taken into possession by the I.O. vide recovery memo. (Exh.PF). He also transmitted the sample parcel to the office of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore on 3.9.2019. Muhammad Akram, Inspector/I.0 (PW-10) supported the version of PW-7. On the other hand, Muhammad Rafique 640/HC (PW-8) deposed that on 18.06.2012, he was posted at Police Station Chab Kalan, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal, on the said date, he received two sealed parcels one containing clothes and the other containing bottle of acid for keeping them in safe custody in police Mall Khana and also for their onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner , Punjab, Lahore. During cross-examination, Muhammad Ajmal 424/C (PW-7) admitted it correct that "in my statement under Section 161, Cr. P.C I stated the colour of bottle recovered and it was green and also it was one and half litre capacity bottle. " He further admitted it correct that "P-7 is white in colour and it hardly can contain half litre liquid material." Hence, in view of above, the recovery of aforesaid, acid bottle (P-7) is of no avail to the prosecution. Even otherwise, it is not believable that the accused/appellant kept the acid bottle (P-7) which he allegedly used in the commission of offence along-with him for a period of one month (as he was arrested on 16.07.2012 after about one month of lodging of the FIR and then got it recovered to the I.O. on 26.07.2012 ) and did not destroy it despite the fact that he has sufficient opportunities to destroy the same. Hence, the recovery of acid bottle (P-7) is not proved against the appellant.
14. Regarding motive, it has been alleged that the accused/ appellant Muhammad Arshad had visiting terms with Mst. Sajida, cousin of Liaquat Ali (PW-4), who abstained him from visiting her, whereupon he felt angry and sprinkled acid upon Liaquat Ali, Mst. Abida and Mst. Zainab (minor). The said Mst. Sajida has not been produced by the prosecution in the witness-box in order to substantiate motive part of the occurrence. During cross- examination, he admitted it correct that Sajida is his niece and daughter of Khadim Hussain PW and sister of Khalid PW who eloped with Arshad accused. He further admitted it correct that Sajida told them and to the police that she will live with Arsand and on that reason the case of abduction was cancelled by the police. Liaquat Ali, injured (PW-4) also admitted it correct that they kept trying for the returning of his cousin Sajida to avoid bad name to the family . In view of above, we are not inclined to accept the story regarding motive as set up by the prosecution and as such, the same does not ring true to our judicious mind hence is disbelieved.
15. For what has been discussed above, the prosecution has failed in proving the case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. The benefit of doubt has accrued, in favour of accused as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held in case titled "Muhammad Khan and another vs. State" (PLJ 2000 SC 1041) that it is axiomatic and universal recognized principle of law that conviction must be found ed on unimpeachable evidence and certainty of guilt and hence any doubt that arises in prosecution case must be resolved in favour of accused .
Moreover it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that a single instance causing a reasonable doubt in the mind of Court entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right. Reliance is placed on case titled as "Muhammad Akram versus The State" (2009 SCMR 230) and "Tariq Pervaiz vs. The State" (1995 SCMR 1345 ). Consequently , we accept Criminal Appeal No. 868-J of 2012, set aside conviction and sentence of the appellant Muhammad Arshad, awarded by learned trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 15.12.2012 and acquit him of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. The appellant is on bail. His surety is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.
16. Since, the accused/appellant has been acquitted of the charge by giving him the benefit of doubt, therefore, the instant Criminal Revision Petition No. 80 of 2013 having no substance stands dismissed.