ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, C.J .--- Criminal Appeals Nos. 92-L and 93-L of 2015 A report received from the relevant jail shows that Wali Muhammad appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 92-L of 2015 has died on 08.11.2017. In view of this development the said appeal has abated to his extent and the same is disposed of as such.
2. Liaqat All appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 92-L of 2015, Mian Khan and Mehdi Khan appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 93-L of 2015 and many others had allegedly murdered eight persons and had injured five others by firing at them at about 08.15 a.m. on 09.06.2005 outside the court of the Addit ional Sessions Judge, Kharian, District Gujrat in the backdrop of a motive according to which the parties were locke d in a blood feud since the year 1962 and on the same day one of the accused persons in this case namely Kalay Khan and another namely Asghar Khan had been convicted and sentenced to death on the charge of murder of a nephew of Shaukat Mehmood complainant and the present incident had taken place soon after announcement of the said judgment.
With these allegations the appellants and their co-accused were booked in case FIR No. 304 registered at Police Station Saddar Kharian, District Gujrat during the same morning and after a regular trial the appellants were convicted by the trial court on eight counts of an offence under section 7(a) of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 read with section 21-I of the said Act and were sentenced to death each on each count and to pay fine. The appellants were also convicted by the trial court on five counts of the offence under section 7(c) of the Anti-T errorism Act, 1997 read with section 21-1 of the said Act and were sentenced to imprisonment for life each on each count and to pay fine. The appellants challenged their convictions and sentences before the High Court through separate appeals which were dismissed and all the convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded by the trial court were upheld and confirmed. Hence, the present appeals by leave of this Court granted on 23.09.2015.
3. Leave to appeal had been granted in these cases in order to reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.
4. In the incident in issue eight persons had been done to death and five others had been injured and the said incident had taken place in broad daylight and regarding the same an FIR had been lodged quite promptly . In the FIR 24 culprits, including the present appellants, had been nominated where as six other culprits had been described as unknown. In the FIR generalized and collective allegations had been levelled against all the culprits and no specific injury to any victim had been attributed or ascribed to any particular culprit. 105 crime-empties had been secured from the place of occurrence which shows that incessant firing had been resorted to during the occurrence. The ocular account of the incident in issue had been furnished before the trial court by five eye- witnesses namely Shaukat Mehmood complainant (PW18), Babar Mehmood (PW19), Rukhsar Ahmed (PW20), Noor Zaman (PW22) and Muhammad Afzal (PW23) out of whom the last three were injured witnesses. The disturbing part of the ocular account is that on the basis of the same statements made by the said eye-witnesses Kalay Khan, Javed Iqbal and Abid co-accused were acquitted by the trial court whereas Irfan and Lal Khan co- accused were acquitted by the High Court despite the fact that the above mentioned eye-witnesses had tarnished the said co-accused with the same brush and except for Kalay Khan effective firing at the deceased had been attributed to the other co-accused. Irfan and Lal Khan co-accused had been acquitted because they were not attributed any specific injury and no weapon had been recovered from their custody during the investigation, Kalay Khan co-accused had been acquitted because he had not caused any injury to any person and the only allegation levelled against him was that of instigating his co-accused at the spot and Javed Iqbal co-accused had been acquitted because despite the complainant knowing him very well his name had not figured in the FIR at all. When three co-accused attributed effective firing at the deceased and the injured victims had been acquitted in this case it was incumbent upon the courts below to look for independent corroboration to the ocular account before convicting and sentencing the present appellants. We have perused the record of the case from that angle and have noticed that although some firearms had allegedly been recovered from the custody of the present appellants yet in the absence of any report of the Forensic Science Laboratory such recoveries were legally inconsequential.
The medical evidence was of no avail to the extent of the present appellants because admittedly no specific injury had been attributed to them and, thus, no independent confirmation was available vis-a-vis the allegation levelled against them regarding effectively firing at the deceased and the injured victims. The motive set up by the prosecution was based upon previous enmity and a blood feud between the parties for the last about four decades and, thus, the said motive could cut both ways. If the said background could provid e a motive to the accused party to launch such a ghastly attack on the complainant party then the same motive could equally propel the complainant party to spread the net wide so as to falsely entangle some members of the accused party . In this context we have noticed that in the impugned judgment passed by it the High Court itself had observed that it was quite probable that the complainant party had spread the net wide. The High Court had also gone on to observe in the impugned judgment that many accused persons facing the trial had been falsely implicated by the complainant party . In the absence of any independent corroboration or confirmation of the allegations levelled against the present appellants, particularly when some co-accused attributed the same roles have already been acquitted by the courts below , we are constrained to observe that the complainant party had no regard for the truth and the eye- witnesses produced by it had been established to be untruthful regarding many innocent persons who had been implicated by them and they had subsequently been acquitted. It has already been held by this Court in the case of Khizar Hayat (PLD 2019 SC 527) that witnesses found to be false in some material aspect are not to be relied upon to the extent of the other aspects deposed about by them.
5. For what has been discussed above these appeals are allowed, the convictions and sentences of Liaqat Ali, Mian Khan and Mehdi Khan appellants recorded and upheld by the courts below are set aside and they are acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to them. They shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.
Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 177-L and 178-L of 201 1 in Criminal Appeal No. 95-L of 2015
6. These miscellaneous applications are allowed in the terms prayed for therein. Disposed of.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 94-L and 95-L of 2015
7. These two appeals have been filed against acquittal of the same private respondents by the courts below . As in the connected Criminal Appeals Nos. 92-L and 93-L of 2015 we have found the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution to be utterly unreliable, there fore, no occasion has been found by us for interference with the acquittal of the private respondents in these appeals. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. The bail bonds and sureties of the private respondents, if any , shall stand discharged.