MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. Appellant, Sanaullah son of Abdullah along with his companions Liaquat Ali, Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Yaqoob, Mehmood Ali, Abdullah, Allah Dinna and Nadeem Amin had allegedly murdered one Ali Muhammad by firing with pistol at about 6:15 pm on 21st January, 2018 in the precinct of Levies Thana Uthal in the backdrop of a dispute over a mining lease situated at Chakwayara, District Lasbela. With these allegations the appellant and his co-accused (since acquitted) were booked in case FIR No. 01 of 2018 registered at the above Levies Station during the ensuing night at 9:45 p.m. After a regular trial the present appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Uthal vide impugned judgment dated 03.06.2021 for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay Rs.200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) as compensation to the legal heirs of deceased.
2. The occurrence in this case had taken place at 6:15 p.m. in the month of January. The place of occurrence was mining lease situated at Chakwayara, District Lasbella and according to the site- plan of the place of occurrence, there was no house or shop situated anywhere close to the place of occurrence. An FIR in respect of the incident in question had been lodged after about 2 hours and 45 minutes and, thus, a possibility regarding deliberation before lodging of FIR could not safely be ruled out of consideration. The eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution i.e. Allah Bakhsh, Sanaullah, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Alam, Zahid Ali, Muhammad Rahim, Muhammad Ismail and Khair Muhammad were closely related to deceased Ali Muhammad. We are conscious of the fact that the presence of PWs Muhammad Rahim, Muhammad Alam, Zahid Ali and Khair Muhammad being injured cannot be possibly doubted at the place of occurrence, however, whether tiley shared with the Court the whole truth is another issue. It is not necessary that the injured witness had spoken the whole truth and it cannot be relied upon unless corroborated. All the prosecution witnesses have been arrayed as accused in cross FIR. No. 02 of 2018 lodged by one Liaquat Ali in respect of the same incident and the witnesses have not uttered a single word regarding the injuries sustained by the opposite party while suppressing the facts. Statements of the alleged injured witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded on 09.02.2018 i.e. after a delay of about 18 days of the incident. The statement of PW-7 Muhammad Ismail was recorded on the day of incident and he has not assigned the role of firing to the appellant. Their statements have been disbelieved by the learned trial Court qua the acquitted seven co-accused. It is by now settled that once the prosecution witnesses are disbelieved with respect to a co-accused then, they cannot be relied upon with regard to the other co-accused unless they are corroborated by independent evidence, but that is not available in the present case. While holding this view, we are fortified from the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan" (PLD 1985 SC 11) which reads as under: "Appreciation of evidence---Principle of indivisibility of credibility---Maxim: Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus---Application of principle---Witness found false with regard to implication of one accused about whose participation he had deposed on oath---Credibility of such witness regarding involvement of other accused in same occurrence when shaken---Where it was found that a witness has falsely implicated one accused person, ordinarily he would not be relied upon with regard to other accused in same transaction but if testimony of such witness was corroborated by very strong and independent circumstances regarding each one of other accused, reliance might then be placed on such witness for convicting other accused when principle of indivisibility of credibility as laid down in Muhammad Faiz Bakhsh v. The Queen is to be ignored."
3. Similarly, medical evidence had given a big lie to the ocular account furnished by the eye- witnesses inasmuch as per Death Certificate Ex.P/12-A, besides the gunshot on the back side of the head near ear, 5 more pellets injuries had been found on the left hand of deceased Ali Muhammad which had not been explained by the eye-witness. According to the prosecution witnesses appellant Sanaullah after placing his gun (Kalashnikov) on the temple of deceased made firing. It is very strange to observe that neither any exit wound nor any blackening was observed by the Doctor at the time of examination. According to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology "Blackening" is found, if a fire-arm like shot-gun is discharged from a distance of not more than 3 feet and a revolver or pistol discharged within about 2 feet. This material aspect of the case was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while granting bail to the appellant Sanaullah on 11- 07-2018 and it was observed: "5. Lest this Court passes any finding, which may prejudice the case during the trial, suffice it to state that though the present petitioner has been attributed the effective role of allegedly causing the death of Muhammad Ali by placing his Kalashnikov on the temple (kanpati) of the latter and firing the fatal shot, the medical evidence available on record, however, does not prima facie support the prosecution's case, as there is no burning, blackening or charring mark coupled with the recovery of pellets so made therefrom which bring the case of the petitioner within the purview of further inquiry as contemplated in Section 497, Cr. P. C.
It is settled principle of administration of criminal justice that prosecutor is bound to prove its case against accused beyond shadow of any doubt. If any reasonable doubt arises in the prosecution case, the benefit thereof must be extended to the accused not as a matter of grace or concession but as a matter of right. Likewise, it is also well embedded principle that there is no need of so many doubts in the prosecution case rather any reasonable doubt arising out from the prosecution evidence is sufficient for acquittal of the accused.
For the foregoing reasons, while granting benefit of doubt to the appellant, we accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded .by the learned trial Court through the impugned judgment. The appellant is acquitted of the charge and shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.