PLJ 2025 Cr.C. 171
واقعہ کے وقت اور مقام پر موجود نہیں تھے اور عینی شاہدین کی جانب سے متوفی کی پیروی کرنے کی کہانی عام فہم کو متاثر نہیں کرتی تھی کیونکہ پی ڈبلیو کی جانب سے متوفی کے پیچھے جانے کی کوئی دلیل نہیں دی گئی تھی
.jfif)
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Muhammad Tariq Nadeem, J.
MUHAMMAD DILSHAD--Appellant
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. A. No. 59174 & Crl. Rev. No. 59075 of 2019,
decided on 18.10.2024.
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)--
----S. 302(b)--Qatl-e-amd--Conviction and
sentence--Challenge to--
واقعہ کے وقت اور مقام پر موجود نہیں تھے اور عینی شاہدین کی جانب
سے متوفی کی پیروی کرنے کی کہانی عام فہم کو متاثر نہیں کرتی تھی کیونکہ پی ڈبلیو کی
جانب سے متوفی کے پیچھے جانے کی کوئی دلیل نہیں دی گئی تھی- دونوں عینی شاہدین نہ تو
متعلقہ وقت پر موقع پر موجود تھے اور نہ ہی انہوں نے واقعہ کا مشاہدہ کیا تھا- چوٹ
کی وصولی کے حوالے سے استغاثہ کا بیان، زخمی ہونے کی نوعیت، حملہ آور کی شناخت نہ ہونے
کے باوجود حملہ آور کی شناخت نہیں کی جا سکتی- دفعہ 103 کی بازیابی کے دوران سی آر
پی سی کی کھلی خلاف ورزی کی گئی تھی- شکایت کنندہ کو اس بقایا رقم کے لئے وقت اور جگہ
کے بارے میں کوئی تفصیل فراہم نہیں کی گئی تھی - استغاثہ کی طرف سے استغاثہ کے ذریعہ
لگائے گئے مقاصد کو ثابت کرنے کے لئے کوئی مواد پیش نہیں کیا گیا تھا، لہذا ہائی کورٹ
کو یہ کہنے میں کوئی ہچکچاہٹ محسوس نہیں ہوتی ہے کہ استغاثہ بدقسمت مقصد کا حصہ ثابت
کرنے میں ناکام رہا ہے۔ اگرچہ استغاثہ ہر قتل کے معاملے میں محرک کا تعین کرنے کا پابند
نہیں تھا لیکن فوجداری فقہ کا یہ بھی طے شدہ اصول ہے کہ اگر استغاثہ کوئی محرک طے کرتا
ہے لیکن اسے ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہتا ہے تو یہ استغاثہ ہے جس کو نقصان اٹھانا پڑتا
ہے نہ کہ ملزم - اپیل کنندہ کے خلاف مقدمہ شکوک و شبہات سے بھرا ہوا تھا اور اس طرح
کے کمزور اور ناقابل اعتماد ثبوتوں کی بنیاد پر اس کی سزا اور سزا کو برقرار نہیں رکھا
جاسکتا تھا - ملک کی سپریم کورٹ بار بار کہا گیا کہ شک کی صورت میں ملزم کو احسان کے
طور پر نہیں بلکہ حق کے معاملے کے طور پر فائدہ دیا جانا چاہئے - اپیل قبول کرلی گئی
تھی۔
Ocular account--Medical evidence--Benefit of doubt--Both PWs
were not present at time and place of occurrence and story of following
deceased by eye-witnesses just before occurrence did not appeal to common sense
because no reasoning had been given by PWs to go behind deceased--Both
eye-witnesses were neither present at spot at relevant time nor they had
witnessed occurrence--The prosecution version with regard to receipt of injury,
nature of injury, kind of weapon used in occurrence but it would not identify
assailant--While effecting recovery mandatory provision of Section 103, Cr.P.C.
had blatantly been violated--No detail regarding time and place for that
outstanding amount was provided to complainant--No material had been produced
by prosecution to substantiate motive alleged by prosecution, hence, High Court
feel no hesitation to hold that prosecution had failed to prove motive part of
unfortunate occurrence--Although, prosecution was not under obligation to
establish a motive in every murder case but it is also well settled principle
of criminal jurisprudence that if prosecution sets up a motive but fails to
prove it, then, it is prosecution who has to suffer and not accused--The case
against appellant was replete with doubts and his conviction and sentence could
not be upheld on basis of such shaky and untrustworthy evidence--The Apex Court
of country time and again held that in event of a doubt, benefit must be given
to accused not as a matter of grace, but as a matter of right--Appeal was
accepted.
[Pp.
176, 177, 178, 179, 180, ] A, B, C, D, E, & F
2010 SCMR 566; 2008 SCMR 95; 2024 SCMR 1427; 2024 SCMR 1449;
2017 SCMR 898; 2022 SCMR 1567; 2023 SCMR 566;
2024 SCMR 51 & 2024 SCMR 1731 ref.
Malik Ejaz Hussain Gorcha, Advocate for
Appellant.
Mr. Abdur Rauf Wattoo, Deputy Prosecutor General
for State.
Ms. Bushra Qamar, Advocate for Complainant.
Date of hearing: 18.10.2024.
Judgment
Muhammad Dilshad (appellant) was tried in case FIR No. 21
dated 31.01.2018 in respect of offences under Section 302/34, PPC registered at
Police Station Noorpur, District Khushab. After conclusion of the trial, the
learned trial Court vide judgment dated 28.08.2019 convicted
and sentenced the appellant as infra:
Under Section 302(b), PPC
life imprisonment for committing the murder of Muhammad
Munawar and to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
to the legal heirs of deceased and in default thereof to further undergo six
months S.I.
Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him.
The appellant has filed the titled appeal against his
conviction and sentence, whereas, Criminal Revision No. 59075 of 2019 has been
preferred by Rana Muhammad Iqbal entreating enhancement of sentence of Muhammad
Dilshad from life imprisonment to death. Since common questions of law and
facts are involved, therefore, both these matters are being decided by mean of
this single judgment.
2. The prosecution
story as given in the opening paragraph of the impugned judgment passed by the
trial Court is reproduced as under:
I am former by profession and resident of Adhi Kot. Accused
Dilshad s/o Muhammad Bashir borrowed money from my deceased son Muhammad
Monawar aged 25/26 years six months before the occurrence for the marriage
expenditure of his sister. My deceased son demanded the borrowed money from
accused but accused Muhammad Dilshad behaved reluctantly to return the borrowed
money. On 31.01.2018 my deceased son was going to shop from his house. I along
with Muhammad Sarwar my son and Muhammad Awais s/o Muhammad Sarwar caste
Rajpoot PWs were coming behind Muhammad Monawar deceased at some distance.
Muhammad Monwar my deceased son when reached on the opposite side of house of
Qari Abdul Wahid at about 10:30 a.m. accused persons Dilshad armed with
Qamanidar knife, Irshad, Mushtaq sons of Muhammad Bashir caste Rajpoot r/o
village Adhi Kot appeared in front of Munawar my deceased son. Muhammad Monwar
deceased son demanded to return the borrowed money from accused Muhammad
Dilshad, at this accused Mushtaq raised lalkara and said we will taste him to
demand borrowed money, meanwhile Dilshad has stabbed knife blow on the right
side of the back (Peeth) of deceased Monawar, due to which he fell down on the
ground. The occurrence was witnessed by me, Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Awais
Pws. After seeing us accused Dilshad etc. ran away towards their house.
Muhammad Monwar my deceased son was in injured condition, we shifted the
injured on private vehicle to THQ hospital Noorpur Thal. Soon after reaching
hospital my son Muhammad Monawar succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.
Motive behind the occurrence is that accused Muhammad Dilshad borrowed money
from my deceased son Muhammad Monawar. My deceased son demanded the same from
Dilshad, due to this demand and grudge Dilshad etc. with common intention
committed intentional murder of my son Muhammad Monawar. I was ready to go
police station for registration of case but in the meanwhile Umar Farooq SI
reached at Hospital after receiving the information, who record Farad Bayan
Exh-PA on the statement of complainant which was read over to him and
complainant signed it as token of correctness which bears his signatures as
Exh-PA/1.”
3. After completion
of investigation, report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted against the
appellant. On indictment, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the
prosecution got examined as many as nine witnesses amongst whom Muhammad Iqbal
complainant (PW1) and Muhammad Sarwar (PW7) have furnished the ocular account.
Haji Mirza Muhammad Saeed, draftsman (PW6) prepared scaled site plan of the
place of occurrence (Exh.PF and Exh.PF/1). Umar Farooq Shah S.I (PW8) being
Investigating Officer stated about various steps taken by him during
investigation of the case. Medical evidence was furnished by Doctor Zain-ul-Abiden
(PW5), who while posted as Medical Officer at THQ Hospital Noorpur, conducted
autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Munawar (deceased) and issued his
post-mortem report (Exh.PC). The remaining prosecution witnesses, more or less,
are formal in nature. The prosecution gave up Nazakat Ali 338/C and Muhammad
Asif son of Muhammad Aslam, PWs being unnecessary and after tendering in
evidence the reports of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore as Exh. PO and
Exh. PP closed its evidence.
4. After completion
of prosecution evidence, statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. of the appellant
was recorded wherein he refuted the allegations levelled against him and
claimed his innocence. While answering to a question, “why this case against
you and why the PWs deposed against you? appellant replied as under:
“The PWs are inter-see related, they have a criminal history
and were having many enemies in the area. The PWs and the complainant have not
advanced any reason of their presence at the place of occurrence, nor they
adduced any physical circumstance of their presence at the place of occurrence.
They are false motive witnesses, moreover, the PWs and the complainant involved
our all adult members of the family in this occurrence. The story of the PWs
was found false during the investigation of the case. These witnesses cannot be
believed even against me. They have falsely involved me in this case.”
He opted not to appear as his own witness within the scope
of section 340(2), Cr.P.C. but produced statement of PW Muhammad Sarwar
recorded by I.O. u/S. 161, Cr.P.C. on 31.01.2018 as Exh. DA, certified copy of
F.I.R No. 301 dated 24.06.2010 of police station Jauharabad u/S. 489-F, P.P.C.
Exh. PB, copy of F.I.R No. 120 dated 26.09.2003 u/S. 341, 342, 506, P.P.C.
police station Noorpur Thal Mark-A, copy of F.I.R No. 55 dated 28.03.2014 u/S.
337-F(5), P.P.C. of police station Noorpur Thal Mark-B and copy of F.I.R No. 02
dated 26.12.2013 u/S. 489-F, P.P.C. of police station 18-Hazari, District Jhang
Mark-C in his defence.
5. The trial Court vide impugned
judgment held the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned
above, hence, this criminal appeal.
6. I have heard the
arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned Deputy Prosecutor
General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant assiduously and also
scanned the record minutely with their able assistance.
7. The ocular
account of the incident in question has been furnished by Muhammad Iqbal
complainant (PW1) and Muhammad Sarwar (PW7) who were closely related to the
deceased inasmuch as PW1 was his father and PW7 was real brother of the
deceased. It is noteworthy that presence of the above mentioned eye-witnesses
at the relevant time is highly unnatural. According to the statements of supra
mentioned PWs the appellant borrowed money from Muhammad Munawar (deceased) for
the marriage expenditure of his sister and deceased demanded money back but the
appellant behaved reluctantly to return the borrowed money. On the fateful day
the complainant’s son namely Muhammad Munawar was going to his shop and
complainant as well as his son namely Muhammad Sarwar (PW7) and grandson
Muhammad Naeem Ullah Awais (jettisoned PW) were behind him at some distance and
when they reached in front of house of Qari Abdul Wahid at 10.30 a.m., the
appellant armed with clasp knife (کمانی دار چاقو) along with
co-accused Irshad and Mushtaq (since acquitted) emerged in front of Muhammad
Munawar (deceased) when Muhammad Munawar (deceased) demanded to return the
borrowed money then co-accused Irshad and Mushtaq raised lalkara that he be
taught a lesson for demanding amount whereupon Muhammad Dilshad appellant
stabbed knife on the right side of the back of Muhammad Munawar (deceased), due
to which he fell down in injured condition. The PWs shifted Muhammad Munawar to
hospital and soon reaching in the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. I have
noted that Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW1) was aged about 80 years at the
alleged time of occurrence and he has not stated that he used to sit at the
shop with his son Muhammad Munawar (since deceased). Muhammad Iqbal (PW1) has
also described about his other son namely Muhammad Sarwar (PW7) in his
cross-examination as under:
“It is correct that my son Muhammad Sarwar PW is an
employee of agriculture department. It is also correct the office of
agriculture department is located on Quaidabad Road near Mitha Tiwana mor and
at a distance of half an hour from place of occurrence.”
Similarly, Muhammad Sarwar (PW7) has stated in his
cross-examination as infra:
“I am permanent employee of the agriculture department.
It is correct that the office of the agriculture department is located on the
Quaidabad Road near Mitha Tiwana Morr. It is incorrect to suggest that the
distance between my office and place of occurrence is nearly 5KM. Volunteers it
is at a distance of half a KM. It is further incorrect to suggest that I was
present on my duty in my office on 31.01.2018, i.e date of occurrence. It is
incorrect to suggest that I have wrongly stated I was present on the place
occurrence on the date of occurrence. I have stated in my statement before the
police that I was on leave on the day of occurrence. Confronted with Ex.DA
wherein it is not so mentioned.”
I have also observed that Umar Farooq Shah, SI (PW8) who was
the Investigating Officer of this case has admitted it correct that Muhammad
Sarwar PW was employee of agricultural department. He did not produce any
certificate of his leave, if any, before him prior to registration of F.I.R.
It is noteworthy that according to the prosecution evidence
complainant and eye-witnesses shifted Muhammad Munawar in injured condition to
THQ, Noorpur Thal on a car and that was owned by Muhammad Aslam and it was 2D
car. The seats of car did not stain with blood. He (PW.1) has admitted in his
cross-examination that they did not try to rap the injury of his son with any
piece of cloth, i.e. Dhoti, Turban or other types of clothes. Same
was the statement of Muhammad Sarwar (PW7). Relevant portion of his
cross-examination reads as under:
“We did not try to rap any piece of cloth on the injury
of our injured brother Muhammad Munawar after the occurrence. Our clothes were
not besmeared with the blood while attending Muhammad Munawar in injured
condition. The seats of the car were also not stained with the blood.”
The above mentioned depositions of the eye-witnesses are not
appealing to a prudent mind because how it is possible that when a person will
handle any injured person having severe stab wound on his body, the clothes of
handling person would not be blood stained and similarly the seat of car
wherein the injured person was shifted will not have blood stains, especially
in the light of statements of eye-witnesses that they had not rap injury of
Muhammad Munawar (since deceased) in injured condition at the place of
occurrence. In the eventuality of above mentioned circumstances, I am quite
confident to hold that both the above mentioned PWs were not present at the
time and place of occurrence and the story of following the deceased by
eye-witnesses just before the occurrence did not appeal to common sense because
no reasoning has been given by the above mentioned PWs to go behind the
deceased. I may refer here the case of “Rohtas Khan vs. The State” (2010
SCMR 566) wherein it is held as under:
“The story narrated by both the PWs is that they came out
from the house to inform the deceased to buy some more articles does not appeal
to common sense as in such a situation there was no need for two persons to
come out from the house. It is usual practice that in such a situation always
father will direct the son to do the needful. Further when they came out from
the house the deceased was just at 10/15 paces away from them therefore they
could have called him to inform to buy other articles. This was the natural
conduct of an elder of the house particularly the father but instead thereof
they were following the deceased and when the deceased reached near the mosque
the incident took place. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a
shop near the place of incident but the Investigating Officer in his statement
denied the above fact by admitting that there was no shop near the place of
occurrence.”
Furthermore, the question of paramount consideration is that
if such was the state of affairs coupled with the fact as per prosecution’s own
version the supra mentioned PWs and Muhammad Naeem Ullah Awais (jettisoned PW)
were coming behind the deceased, then why they had not physically intervened
and attempted to apprehend the appellant especially when he was not armed with
any formidable weapon. I have noted that Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW1) has
admitted in his cross-examination that they had not tried to apprehend the
accused. Relevant lines of his cross-examination read as under:
“I, Awais and Muhammad Sarwar did not try to apprehend
the accused. Volunteered we were at a distance of thirty feet from the place of
occurrence.”
Under the circumstances, it can be safely held that both the
above mentioned eye-witnesses were neither present at the spot at the relevant
time nor they had witnessed the occurrence. I may refer here the case of “Liaqat
Ali vs. The State” (2008 SCMR 95). Similar view was reiterated by the
august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of “Pathan vs. The
State” (2015 SCMR 315), “Zafar vs. The State and others” (2018
SCMR 326) “Shaukat Hussain vs. The State” (2022 SCMR 1358)
and “Jahangir and another vs. The State and others” (2024 SCMR
1741).
8. Another
important aspect of this case which cannot be lost sight of is that according
to the prosecution story Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW1) and Muhammad Sarwar
(PW7) escorted Muhammad Munawar in injured condition to the hospital but both
the above mentioned PWs are not witnesses of identification of deadbody in the
inquest report (Exh.PE), similarly, if they were present in the hospital, why
they had not identified the deadbody of Muhammad Munawar at the time of his
post-mortem. This fact has constrained me to hold that supra mentioned PWs were
not present at the time and place of occurrence. Reliance is placed upon the
following case laws titled as “Abdul Jabbar alias Jabri v. The State” (2017
SCMR 1155) and “Nadeem alias Kala v. The State and others” (2018
SCMR 153) and “Liaqat Ali and another vs. The State and others” (2021
SCMR 780).
9. Though, the
medical evidence which is in the shape of statement of Dr. Zain-ul-Abiden,
(PW5), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Munawar (deceased)
and issued PMR (Exh.PC) is available but no other trustworthy direct or
indirect evidence is available against the appellant, which could be supported
by the medical evidence. It is by now well settled that medical evidence is a
type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the prosecution version with
regard to receipt of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the
occurrence but it would not identify the assailant. Reference in this context
may be made to the cases of “Muhammad Hassan & another v. The State
& another” (2024 SCMR 1427) and “Iftikhar Hussain alias
Kharoo v. The State” (2024 SCMR 1449).
10. So far as recovery of blood
stained knife P-5 at the instance of the appellant, vide recovery
memo. (Exh.PL) from his residential house and the positive report of Punjab
Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh.PO) are concerned, the same are not
helpful to the prosecution as I have noted that the occurrence in this case
took place on 31.01.2018, whereas, knife P-5 was allegedly recovered on
23.02.2018 from residential house of appellant. According to the statement of
Umar Farooq Shah, SI/I.O. (PW8) the appellant was arrested on 16.02.2018, i.e.
almost 16 days after the occurrence, therefore, preserving the crime weapon in
his own house by appellant is against the nature, especially once the appellant
decided to conceal the weapon, as is the case of the prosecution then there was
no occasion that he would keep the same in such safe custody so as to get
recover the same at a subsequent point of time and hand over to police as a
souvenir, therefore, the alleged recovery of knife P-5 is not helpful to the
prosecution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Basharat and
another v. The State” (1995 SCMR 1735) disbelieved the evidence of
blood-stained knife which was allegedly recovered from the house of accused
after ten days of the occurrence. Relevant part of the said judgment is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
“The occurrence took place on 20.04.1988. Basharat
appellant was arrested on 28.04.1988. The blood-stained Chhuri was allegedly
recovered from his house on 30.04.1988. It is not believable that he would have
kept blood stained chhuri intact in his house for ten days when he had
sufficient time and opportunity to wash away and clean the blood on it”
I have noted that the witness of recovery Amir Shahzad 497/C
(PW9) is a police employee and while effecting the above mentioned recovery of
knife P-5 Umar Farooq Shah, SI/I.O. (PW8) has not made any effort to associate
the people of the vicinity. He in his cross-examination has also conceded this
aspect as infra:
“I have not associated any Lumberdar or Councilor during
recovery proceedings of the knife allegedly made by the accused. I have also
not summoned any person from vicinity of the place of recovery to witness the
recovery proceeding of knife.”
In the light of above circumstances, I am of the considered
view that while effecting the above mentioned recovery the mandatory provision
of Section 103, Cr.P.C. has blatantly been violated. Reference in this context
may be made to the case of “Muhammad Ismail and others vs. The State” (2017
SCMR 898).
Now adverting to the positive report of Punjab Forensic
Science Agency, Lahore (Exh. PO) I have noted that Umar Farooq Shah, SI/I.O.
(PW8) has not stated in his evidence that knife P-5 was blood stained. For the
purpose of clarity relevant portion of his examination-in-chief is described
below:
“On 23.02.2018 Muhammad Dilshad accused was interrogated
by me in this case and during interrogation he made disclosure regarding the
knife (weapon of offence) (objected by defence counsel) and as a result of
aforesaid disclosure Muhammad Dilshad accused led to the recovery of knife from
inside the residential room of his house from an iron box. Knife P-5 sealed the
same into parcel and took into possession through recovery memo. Exh. PL
attested by Amir Shahzad 497/C and Nazakat Ali 348/C. I also prepared rough
site plan Exh. PM of the place of recovery of knife and recorded the statement
of attested witnesses”
In the light of above mentioned circumstances, when this
Court has already disbelieved the recovery of knife P-5 and Umar Farooq Shah,
SI/I.O. (PW8) has not stated in his evidence that knife P-5 was blood stained
then the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore (Exh. PL) has lost
its significance and, in this way inconsequential to the prosecution case.
12. Now the next piece of
evidence which still remains in the field is the motive advanced by the
prosecution behind the unfortunate incident, which, as per prosecution case was
that the appellant borrowed money from Muhammad Munawar (deceased) and when
deceased demanded money back the appellant committed the murder of Muhammad
Munawar son of the complainant. I have noted that motive was only an oral
assertion of the complainant because no date, time and place as well as figure
of borrowed money from the deceased by the appellant has been described by the
PWs. Muhammad Iqbal complainant (PW1) has stated in his cross-examination as
under:
“while lodging the FIR I did not mention the amount of
the borrowed money as the police said you might depose the amount Rs.
50,000.-before the Court.”
Similarly, Muhammad Sarwar (PW7) has stated in his
cross-examination as infra:
“I stated about the borrowed amount in my statement
before the Police. Confronted with Ex.DA wherein it is not so recorded. I also
stated in my statement before the police about the place and time where the
transaction of the borrowed amount took place. Confronted with Ex.DA wherein
all these details are not mentioned.”
Whereas, Umar Farooq Shah, SI/I.O. (PW8) has stated in his
cross-examination that the complainant did not provide any details of money and
also did not produce any witness for this outstanding amount. No detail
regarding time and place for this outstanding amount was provided to him. In
the light of above mentioned circumstances, no material has been produced by
the prosecution to substantiate the motive alleged by the prosecution, hence, I
feel no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive
part of the unfortunate occurrence. Although, the prosecution is not under
obligation to establish a motive in every murder case but it is also well
settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that if prosecution sets up a
motive but fails to prove it, then, it is the prosecution who has to suffer and
not the accused. Reliance is placed upon the cases titled as “Tajamal
Hussain Shah vs. The State and another” (2022 SCMR 1567), “Amir
Muhammad Khan vs. The State” (2023 SCMR 566), Sarfraz and
another vs. The State (2023 SCMR 670) and “Maqsood Alam and
another v. The State and others” (2024 SCMR 156).
13. After analyzing the
prosecution case from every angle, I have concluded that the case against the
appellant is replete with doubts and his conviction and sentence cannot be
upheld on the basis of such shaky and untrustworthy evidence. The Apex Court of
the country time and again held that in the event of a doubt, the benefit must
be given to the accused not as a matter of grace, but as a matter of right.
Reliance is placed upon the following case laws titled as “Muhammad
Riaz vs. Khurram Shahzad and another” (2024 SCMR 51) “Muhammad
Nawaz & another v. The State and others” (2024 SCMR 1731)
and “Rehmat Ullah & 2 others v. The State & others” (2024
SCMR 1782).
14. For the foregoing
reasons, Criminal Appeal No. 59174-J of 2019 is accepted and
Muhammad Dilshad, appellant is acquitted of the charge by extending benefit of
doubt to him. Muhammad Dilshad
appellant is in jail; he be released forthwith if not
required in any other case.
15. After accepting the appeal
of Respondent No. 1 and setting aside the impugned judgment this Criminal
Revision No. 59075 of 2019 for enhancement of sentence is dismissed.
(A.A.K.) Appeal
allowed
.jfif)
.jfif)
.jfif)
