Sadaqat Ali Khan, J.--Appellant (Muhammad Yaseen) has been tried by learned trial Court in case FIR No. 409 dated 04.10.2012 offence under Section 302, PPC. Police Station Saddar Pattoki, District Kasur and was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 20.12.2016 as under: Muhammad Yaseen (appellant)
U/S. 302(b), PPC Sentenced to DEATH as Tazir for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Imran deceased with compensation of Rs.
5,00,000/- payable to the legal heirs of deceased under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C, and in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months..
2. Appellant has filed this criminal appeal against his conviction and learned trial Court has sent Murder Reference for confirmation of his death sentence or otherwise which are being decided through this single judgment.
3: Brief facts of the case have been stated by Bagh Ali complainant P.W.5 in his statement before the learned trial Court, which is hereby reproduced for narration of the facts:- On 4.10.2012 at about 8:30 pm I alongwi th my family members were present in my house. Accused Yasin present in the Court raised a Lalkara to teach a lesson to my son Imran and ask him to come out the house. I alongwith my son Imran came out of my house, accused Yasin made straight firing upon me. Luckily I escaped. Then he made second fire while saying that he will not let Imran. Said fire hit on the neck of Imran. Resultantly he fell on the ground. On hearing voice of fire I raised hue and cry on which many persons gathered there who were watching match on T.V including Liaqat, Shehbaz, Mushtaq Ramzan etc. When people gathered there accused Yasin while waiving pistol fled away from the place of occurrence. My son Imran who was smeared with blood was taking to hospital by me and Munir as well as Chhachha and when we were crossing Multan Road Bypass my son Imran succumbed to the injuries. After that we took him to the hospital. I informed the police who visited the place of occurrence in the presence of Ramzan and Liaqat PWs. I moved application Ex.PC at about 9:30 pm before the police for registration of case on the day of occurrence. Motive behind the occurrence was a quarrel between my deceased son Imran and accused Yasin prior few hours of the occurrence on motorcycle issue.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Muhammad Imran was done to death on the road on 04.10.2012 at 8:30 p.m., FIR was lodged on the same night i.e. 04.10.2012 at 9:30 p.m. on the written application Ex.P.0 moved by his father Bagh Ali complainant P.W.5 who alongwith Muhammad Shahbaz P.W.6 claim themselves to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Neither source of light has been mentioned in the FIR nor in the statements of both the eye-witnes ses. In such eventuality , identity of the appellant is not free from doubt. It is mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of Muhammad Shahbaz P.W.6 Ex.D.A recorded during investigation that fire shot made by the appellant hit on the front of the neck of Muhammad Imran deceased which is an exit wound (Injury No. 2 as observed by Dr. Amjad Ali Kazmi, P.W.9).
Both the eye-witnesses to bring the case in line with medical evidence while making dishonest improvements before the learned trial Court simply stated that fire shot made by the appellant hit on the neck of deceased which shatter their credibility . Muhammad Shahbaz P.W.6 admitted in his cross-examination that he got recorded in his statement Ex.D.A. that he reached the place of occurrence after hearing noise of complainant and fire shot. Bagh All complainant P.W.5 admitted in his cross-examination that place of occurrence is situated on "Sharah-e-Aam".
Houses of Faqir Hussain, Bakhshi Khan, Sadiq son of Nazar Din and Sadiq son of Barkat are situated near the place of occurrence, but none of them is witness in this case. Both the eye-witnes ses were the chance witnesses, but have failed to establish their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence with their stated reasons. Reliance is placed on case titled "Muhammad Rafique vs. The State" (2014 SCMR 1698 ).
6. Motive of the occurrence as stated by Bagh Ali complainant P.W.5 was a quarrel between Muhammad Imran deceased and Muhammad Yaseen appellant few hours prior to the occurrence on the issue of motorcycle but both the P .Ws. did not give its detail, hence, this motive is not believable.
7. Muhammad Amin S.I. P.W. 11 stated in his statement before the learned trial Court that on 30.10.2012, Muhammad Yaseen appellant during interrogation disclosed and got recovered pistol .30- bore P-4 from a bush existing on a Pacca Road wrapped in a plastic paper , which is an open place and accessible to everyone, hence, this recovery is not believable.
8. In view of the above discussion, we entertain serious doubt in our minds regard ing participation of, Muhammad Yaseen appellant in the present case. It is settled principle of law that for giving benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubt. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in the prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then he would be entitled to its benefit not as a matter of grace of concession, but as of right. Reliance is placed on case reported as "Muhammad Akrani vs. The State" (2009 SCMR 230 ).
9. For the foregoing reasons, the instant criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Yaseen appellant is accepted, his conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court through the impugned judgment are hereby set aside.
Muhammad Yaseen appellant is acquitted of the charge and is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Murder Reference is answered in NEGA TIVE and death sentence of the appellant Muhammad Yaseen is NOT CONFIRMED. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.