Muhammad Afzal, Muhammad Zahoor and Muhammad Saleem, petitioners, alongwith 9 others were tried under section 435/148/149, P.P.C. For putting on fire the wheat crop of Muhammad Yar, complainant, lying on the thrashing floor. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
2. To prove its case, the prosecution produced 4 witnesses. Muhammad Yar, P.W.1 and Ahmad Sher, P.W.2, stated that they had seen the petitioners and the co-accused armed with guns present on the spot; and that Zahoor Khan, petitioners put the wheat crop on fire while his companions remained near the place of occurrence giving threats to the P.Ws. Ghulam Sarwar, P.W.3, stated that he had seen the petitioners on the spot and not 9 co-accused; and that Muhammad Yar complainant had told him that the wheat crop had burnt. Pervaiz Shah, P.W.4, investigated the case.
3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioners denied all incriminating circumstances. They did not produce any evidence in defence. The trial Court acquitted the 9 co- accused but convicted the petitioners under section 435/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.100 or in default thereof one month's R.I. Each. The 9 co-accused were acquitted of the charge. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed appeal against their conviction and Muhammad Yar, complainant, filed revision for the enhancement of sentence of the petitioners. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, vide his judgment, dated 1-12-1983 dismissed the appeal and the revision as well.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ahmad Sher and Muhammad Yar P.Ws., are related and inimical witnesses and Ghulam Sarwar has not supported their statements and as such the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel for the State has opposed him.
S. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel pursuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that Ahmad Sher, P.W.2, is the first cousin of Muhammad Yar, complainant.
Admittedly there has been civil and criminal litigation between these two witnesses and the accused (petitioners) party. So, their statements could not be safely relied upon without corroboration. The Courts below have attached much importance to the statement of Ghulam Sarwar P.W.3. An examination of the statement of Ghulam Sarwar will show that he has not supported the prosecution version that he had seen the accused/petitioner and his co-accused committing the crime. He has clearly stated that he had not seen the accused setting wheat crop on fire. In his cross-examination-in-chief he stated:-- Since there is no independent reliable evidence in corroboration of the two inimical witnesses namely Ahmad Sher and Muhammad Yar, therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, this revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioners is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge.