Muhammad Jamil, Mehdi Hassan, Muhammad Saleem, Fateh Muhammad, Khalid Mahmood and Muhammad Siddique, were tried under sections 302/307, 148/149, P.P.C. By the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh for the murder of Nawab Din and also for having made a murderous assault on kamzan P.W. The learned trial Court sentenced Muhammad Jamil and Khalid Mahmood to imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs.10,000 each or in default thereof to suffer further one year's R.I., .On 2-10-1990 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also given to them. However, Mehdi Hassan, Muhammad Saleem, Fateh Muhammad and Muhammad Siddique, were acquitted by the learned trial Judge by giving them the benefit of doubt. The convict-appellants have challenged their conviction and sentence by filing this appeal. Allegations against the appellants and their acquitted co--accused were that they while armed with Sotas and hatchets committed the murder of Nawab Din on 18-9-1989 within the area of Chak No.689/31, Tehsil Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh. They also injured Muhammad Ramzan P.W. The prosecution in order to prove the case produced Abdul Majeed P.W.1, Abdul Shakoor P.W.2, Ashiq Hussain P.W.3, Kazim Hussain Gilani P.W.4, Muhammad Afzal P.W.5, Muhammad Ajmal, P.W.6, Zahoor Ahmad P.W.7, Muhammaa Arshad P.W.8, Ghulam Askari P.W.9, Muhammad Ramzan P.W.10, Mukhtar Ahmad P.W.11, Dr. Ahsan Rashid P.W.12, Shahid Mehmood P.W.13, Ghulam Hussain P.W.14, Faqir Hussain P.W.15, Muhammad Nawaz P.W.16 and Noor Ahmad P.W.17. Abdul Majeed, complainant P.W.1, Abdul Shakoor P.W.2 and Muhammad Ramzan P.W.10 were eye-witnesses in the case. They did not support the case of the prosecution while making statements before the trial Court. These witnesses were duly declared hostile and were subjected to cross---examination. So far Abdul Majid P.W.1 is concerned, he stated that he was not present at the spot-and that he entered into a compromise with the accused party and that he had also pardoned them. The accused denied the allegations levelled against them while making statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. They took the plea that they had been implicated in the case on account of ill-will on the part of Ashiq Hussain and Muhammad Afzal P.W s.
2. The sole contention raised and argued by Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa, learned counsel for the appellants is that there is not a shred of evidence available on record to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime, inasmuch as the prosecution witnesses did not support prosecution version and as such were declared hostile. They were subjected,, to cross-examination by the learned prosecutor. Similarly, complainant himself and injured P.W., did not support the version of prosecution. Muhammad Ram7an, an injured P.W. Deposed that Ashiq Ali P.W.3 was not present at the spot when the occurrence took place. In this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate-General is also of the view that this is not a case free from doubt. He also says that the parties have entered into a promise.
3, 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. I find that prosecution witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution inasmuch as all the witnesses were declared hostile and were cross-examined.
Even the injured prosecution witnesses did not give any support to prosecution case. There is also no strong circumstantial evidence to connect the appellants with the commission of the crime. The learned trial Court disbelieved the whole prosecution evidence while acquitting the co-accused of the appellants by giving them the benefit of doubt. The same set of evidence cannot under law be believed for the conviction of the appellants. The recovery of crime weapons was also doubtful inasmuch as P.W.8 Muhammad Arshad did not support the recovery. Thus, recovery is also of no avail to the case of the prosecution. Medical evidence alone cannot be the basis for conviction of the appellants. Thus the case as a whole is doubtful and as such benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants.
4. In this view of the matter, this is a case, which is not free from doubt. Even the learned Law Officer docs not defend the conviction and sentence of the appellants. By giving the benefit of doubt to the appellants, I acquit them. They shall be set at liberty forthwith provided of course, they are not required in any other case. This appeal succeeds and is allowed.