' Kamran Ellahi, the appellant has brought the instant appeal against the judgment dated, 26-3- 2003 recorded by Syed Imam Ali Shah, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan whereby he has acquitted respondent No.1 Islam-udDin of the charge against him under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. In case F.I.R. No.100 of 2001 dated 20-5-2001, registered with the Police Station, Lohari Gate, Multan.
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the same are that respondent No.1 and his brother Liaqat Ali were tried under section 302 read with section 34, P.P.C. In the said case for committing the Qatle-e-Amd of the deceased Ehsan Ellahi, the brother of the appellant in furtherance of their common intention on 20-5-2001 at about 9-15 p.m. Within the area of Mohallah Ashfaqabad, Multan.
3. They both were formally charged under the said section i.e. 302/34, P.P.C. They pleaded not guilty.
4. The prosecution at the trial examined it's as many as 12 witnesses. They are Noor Muhammad, A.S.-I. (P.W.1), Muhammad Sarwar, Constable (P.W.2), Dr. Nazir Ahmad Nasir (P.W.3), Abdul Ghaffar, Moharrir (P.W. 4), Rizwan Usman (P.W.5), Irfan Hayat, Draftsman (P.W.6), Muhammad Munsif (P.W.7), Kamran Ellahi, Complainant (P.W.8), Imran Ellahi (P.W.9), Azam Ali Shah, Inspector (P.W.10), Javed (P.W.11) and Ghulam Mustafa Pahor, Investigating Officer .(P.W.12). The prosecution also tendered in evidence the report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.L. And that of Serologist Exh.P.M.
5. They in their examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. Have denied the allegation appearing against them in the prosecution evidence. He had pleaded innocence while his brother. Liaqat Ali pleaded to have caused the death of the deceased in self-defence.
6. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties has acquitted him of the charge against him giving the benefit of doubt while convicted his said brother Liaqat Ali under section 302(b), P.P.C.
For committing the Qatl-e-Amd of Ehsan Ellahi and sentemed him to death subject to confirmation by this Court. He was also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default thereof to further undergo six months R.I.
7. The appellant feeling aggrieved of his acquittal has assailed the impugned judgment to that extent by way of the instant appeal.
8. We have heard his learned counsel, who has contended that on the same evidence his brother has been convicted and the same is also sufficient to connect him with the crime as regards his common intention with him (brother ) to do away with the deceased and the learned trial Court did not properly appreciate the same in it's true perspective and so has erred in acquitting him of the charge.
9. We have carefully considered his submissions and gone through the copy of the impugned judgment very carefully.
10. As said above that respondent No.1 is the real brother of his convicted co-accused Liaqat Ali. He admittedly, was empty-handed at the time of occurrence. He has been ascribed no overt act qua the deceased. No incriminating article was recovered from him. So the question of his sharing the common intention with his brother/convict Liaqat Ali and participation in the occurrence In doing away with the deceased is matter not above doubt. The role assigned to him in the evidence was of raising mere proverbial Lalkara. We cannot lose sight of the fact that there is growing tendency in our society to rope in maximum member of the family in such-like cases to wreak vengeance.
So, it is the duty cast upon the Courts to cautiously scrutinize evidence in forming the view about the guilt or otherwise of the accused. The role of abundant pre-caution required that grain may be sifted from the chaff and the evidence rightly appraised in the background of the given case.
11. On this standard, if the case of respondent No.1 may be adjudged, the only conclusion which could be arrived at in respect of his involvement in the matter is that it was not free from doubt. The learned trial Court, therefore, has rightly acquitted him of the charge by giving the benefit of doubt in these circumstances.
12. So the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is without any force and the same is repelled. We, therefore, have firm view that there is no substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed summarily as envisaged by section 421, Cr.P.C.
Appeal against acquittal dismissed.