Shah Faisal (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)

P.i*, r-L L".r* f rr-\J-lLq-I tt+ t*L. .*rrt-il+ ;rt2 i 2 q4fl^-hL \la.r5 \ €dt

C

( l l,,lt'l'l lil Cn 'l' l,l ol,' 'l'l llt c()u l{'[' lN l{ It()A lil) "l'.O lt IrPOl?',I'lN(;

C$tttHIFJAL APPEAL N o, s-39 0F 2013

SHAH FAISAL V/S THE STATE

STNNFT FIIGH COURT ,CI RCUIT COURT HYDERABAD

COMPOSiI'TIOI{ OF BtrNCH

II()ivIII,E I\,i IT.,Il.IS'I'I(,I., h,I()IIAN{IVIAI) I.iN ITIM I(HAI\ AGIIA (s.B.l | )rrtr: ttl' l;r:rl lrcirring (lrr:irr-rl f rt:scrvcrl): i 3- 1 2-2023 l)r:r:irlr:<I on: 20- t 2-2023

(,,) .Jrrrlllrncr-rl iippr<tvr:cl Ior r-c1>rlrling YBS

J

CERTIFICATtr (lt:r'Iil'it:i,rrt' tliart l.i-rc .Jr.rdgn'rcnt/Or<]<:r is baseci upon or" ollt-tttciittt:s i.t ltr-rrrc:iplc of'lr.rti,/cleciclrr. a cluestion of lerrn, whicfu is t t;f' I'ir-st inrl:r-cri$iiorr/clistingLrishr:s over-rules/explains i.I l.)r r:rrio irs rlccisiorr.

Slr rl<r: <lr.-lt u,lrir;l-rcvcr is nol n[)plicalll<:.

N( )',1'l,l (i) 'l'lris slill is onll lo lrr: rrs<:rl r.r,lrr:r-r somo ar:l.ion is to h<: t.ilkr:n.

(ii)ll iht: sliP is rtst:<1, 1l"r<l ltr:arrl<:r rntrsl. attalch it to the top ot' 1 l'rr: t'irsl 1xr1g<: ol' l.[rr: .Jur.lSyrr<Inl..

(iiil (lt>ttt'l 1\ssot:iirlt: rrrrrst usl< l.l"rr:.Ju<lp3: r,rrrittcn tlrr: jurlgmr:nl. it lrt:l h t:r' I h t: .j r r< lgl nr:rr t. i s a p;tr-o.r<:rl ltlr- ru:1:orting. (it') 'l'l.tost: rlirt:t:liotts u,lri<:lr iu'c nol lo lrt: r*rsccl strould bc rk:lctt:cl.

s(i1,. tr,irI l.1iii1 'r iJ ),0()O .t 2(X).i lll

fi

t s92

a ,'r'i, ,. , i; i. I j ,,, , n/-,f 0l ,fu/3 ffilrwri=-,j- y_*.,*u i,f{ u tj

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SII,IDH, CI RCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD. /

C

,D

Shah Faisal. S/O Haji LaI Shah, A/ ,TT By caste Syed, Adult, Muslim, Resident of Mustimabad Mirpurklras, Presentty confined in Central prison Hyderabad Sindh.

.. .Appettant/accused.

Versus

I

\ The State .. ... Responderrt.

Crime No. 9 5 of 2008.

Potice S tatio n Sateltite Town Mirp urkhas. Under Sec tion 302 374 337-D 336 PPC.

I

OltDlrl{ SFIlrlrT IN TI{II HIGII COUIIT OlT SINI}H, cl Iltc l.J I' I' COtl lt'I', I IY DIIR,\BAD.

Cr. Appeal No.S-39 of 2013

DA'I'I, OltDtlR WI'rH SIGNATTJRII OF JUDGE lror' lrcat'ittu ol' tttaitr cttsc.

I 3. I 2,2023 .

Mr.. Zainr-rcldin llaloch, Aclvocate lbr appellant.

Ms. Saua Metttoll. Asst. prgsecr,ttor General, Sindh.

I liave hearcl thc learnecl counsel lor tht appellant and the learned A.P.fi. l{esc:rvecl ttrr .i uclgment.

h JUDGtr

I

't' I I tr.li i. I;' u I t tr rl'i'

Zs Dn)uw^ Cp L P^^r*J U"^d t,*J.^ \ -rf1<^f

HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT AT

HYDERABAI)

Criminal Appeal hJo.S-gg of 2013 IShah Faisal verslrs The State]

A ppella nt I.h rtirrgh lVl r. /,ai.uc{c1in llaloch, Aclvocate Conrplainant I\one present but service held good.

State 'fhrough Ms. Sana Memon Assistant p.G

Date of' hearing 13.12 2023

Date of Juclgment : Z}.LZ.Z)ZZ

IUDG MENT

t ru - ,I.hrough this appeal the appellant Shah Faisal has irnpugnecl the Juclgment clatecl 30.03.2013 passed by learnecl Sessions Juclge, Mirpurkhas (Trial Court) in Sessio,s Case No'103 of 2008 [The State versus Shah Faisal], outcome of Crirne No'95 of 2008 registerccl at P.S Satellite Town Mirpurkhas for offence purrishable uncler section 302, 924, 337-D. and gg6 ppc, whereby for offence ttf s 302(b) l'PC he has been convictecl ancl sentencecl to suffer irrrprisotttlretrt for iilC n,ith lurrther clirections to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as colxpensation to legal heirs of cleceasecl Mir, Ali Bux and in case of default in payment thereof he has to suffer S.t for six months; whereas for offerllces u/s 324 PPC he has ]:een colrvictecl and sentenced to suffer rigorous inrprisonlnellt for six years with fine of Rs,5,000/- and in case of failure in payfflent of fine he has to suffer ll.l for six months; he has ) also Lreen convictecl aucl sentencecl q/s 337-D ppc to suffer rigorous irnprist)Illllent for six ycars with directions to pay 7/}ra of Diyat as Arsh titrrtlttttt n'hile l'tlr ol'f'ettt-e n f s 33(r I'l)C he has been convictecl a,cl setttt-'ttccd to suffcr rigorours irnprisonment l:or six years ancl also to pay Arsh atnouut in lurnp sulrr of Rs.1,00,000/- to injurecl p.W Saclclam I-Iussain' Flowever, all the sentences of rigor:ous irnprisonment have becu orclcrecl to run concurrently anrl benefit to section 382-B Cr,p.C has Lreen extenclecl to the appellant..

I

2, Cornplainaut Nzlir Nazeer Ahmecl Talpurr loclged the aforesaid FIR b), ttuting thereiu that he used to run private school; that his sister Mst. Nighat was married r,vith one Ali Bux in the year 2000 while his other sister Mst. Part'eett was rnarriecl with Shah, Faisal about one ancl half year back of this of this inciclent; that out of said wedlock Mst. Parveen has two tlar-rghters; that aftcr some tirne of nrarriage some clispute arose Lretnreen Shah Faisal ancl his sister Mst. Parveen and Shah Faisal oustecl Mst. Parveett frotn his holtse alongr.vith ruinor claughters as such his sistt't'Mst. I''at't'een starLerl residing rvith hirn and thereafter Shah Faisal startecl issr-ring tltt'ttt thrcats ou phone, then his sister Mst. Parveel filecl a family sr-rit for clissolution of rnarriage before the Court Civil Judge-ll Mirpurkhas; on 12.07.2008 he, his father Mir Maqbool Ahmed, brother Mir Z,afarullah, cousin Mir Saddam l-Iussain , cousin Mir Ali Bux alcl his stcp lrrother avaicl \,t/el'e present at their house alongwith other

J

iuuraLes wheu at alrourt 0915 irours their house's cloor was knockecl on I which his cousiu sacldarn l-lussain opened the cloor and Shah Faisal immecliately euterecl iu the house; they saw that Shah Faisal was having pristol in his hatrc{, who iurtner{iately mac{e fire upon Saclclam Flussain tiucl r\li BLlx with intentiou to kill thenr, which hit at left sicle of stomach of Sadclam l-lutssaiu while on the left sicle of r:hest ancl left arm of Mir A1i []ux, who raisecl cries and then Shah Faisal went away on black colourecl tnotorcycle; thereafter they Lrrought the injured persons at Civil Hospital Mirpurkhas where Mir A1i Ilux expirecl.

3' After usual investigation police sr-rbmittecl the challan before the Court coucerncd and arftel cornpleting ltecessary formalities, learned trial t}rurt frarnccl the charge againsL the accusecl/appellant, to which he pl,:adec1 not gurilty ancl clairned trial.

L

4, At trial, the prosecution in orcler to prove its case exarninecl seven (07) witnesses atrtl c'xhilrited nutleroLls clocurnents ancl other items. The starternerrf of accttserl was recort{ecl r-rncler sectio n 342Cr.P.C whereby 1-re

clerrietl thc' al lcga tious levelecl aga ins t him and claimed his false irnplicatiorr in the case. Appellant also examined himself on Oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C anrl producecl two Dh's in support of his defense case. ,

q

5.Lea ruecl trial Court a f ter hearing tlre learnecl counsel for the parties arut{ exartritring ther evirleuce availa[:1e on recorcl convicted ancl seutencecl the arpprellaut as statecl earrlier in this judgment. Hence the appellant has filed tiris appeal against his conviction.

6.Leaructl trial coltrt in thc inrpr-rgr-recl judgrnent has alreacly cliscussetl the t-videllce in cletail ancl there is no need to repeat the same here, so as to avoicl cluplication ancl unnecessary repetition.

7.lt is uotetl that despite service on the complainant he chose to t'etnaitr alrsctrt antt as surch sct'tr icc on him was helcl goocl viclc. Orcler tlatet{ 07.'11.?023. Since the appellant hacl 4lready l:een in jail for a large periocl of titnc'' atrtl thc intcrest of the complainant coulcl be lookecl after t'y tlre leamec{ State Cor-r nsel, as such in the intelest of justice I proceetletl with this oltl appeal of 20'13 an.1 have cleciclecl the same thror-rgh this j r-r r1grnent,

J

I' Learned collllsel for the appellant contenclecl that t6ere was a farnill'clispr-rte between the complainant sicle ancl the accr-rsed ancl this is why he wars falsely implicatccl in this case; that the eye wihresses were all relatc'tl anc{ hac{ enmity with the appellant and thus their evidence coultl uot be safely rclicd upolt; that the pistol rvas foistecl o1 him by the pol icc; tha t therc \{/ c re ma teria l contra rj ictions in the evictence of the t't'itnesses n'hich t'euclc'Lec{ their: evic{ence uni:eliable; that the appellant hacl alreatly beeu actltiittetl in the connected illegal weapons case and that f':r any or all of the al-rove reasons the appellant shoulcl be acquitbed of the charge Lry extencling him the benefit of the doubt. In support of iris conteutious he placecl reliance on tire reported cases of MUIJAMMAD ALI versus The STATIT 12017 SCMR 14681, NADEEM alias I(ALA verstrs The STATE and others [2018 SCMR 15g], IVIUFIAMMATI ASHRAI" ancl another versus The STATE and others 12A22 YLR Notc 31j cii1Ll, IVlaster MUI-Ir\MMAD NASEITM versus The State 12022 YLR 4b9).

L)

' Leamecl Assistant P.G vehernently opposed the appeal ancl playeti for its clismissal by argr-ring that appeJlant himself has aclmittecl his prc'sellce at the place of incicient; that all the eyewitnesses inclucti,g complitiuanl have fully implicatect the appellant with the commission o,

F

,w 4

the off,lnce; that thr: prosccLrtion eye witlless€s, have fully suPported the

versior.r of I;lR rrnrl (au1 theil eviclence can be safely relied upon; that

there is r-ro contraciictions in the evidence of the PW's; that the medical eviclen.ce supports the octrlar evidence; that Parties are known to each as this other as such there is no cl-restion of rnistaken identity especially vv.s fl riali lig6t ilciclent anrl the pistol was recovered from the accused on 6is; pro ip ta tion ancl as s uch the prosecution had prove.l its case beyo,cl a reasonable rloubt ancl the appeal be clisrnissed. In suPport of

her corrtentior-rs, she placecl reliance on the rr:ported case of MAZHAR ELLAHI versus The STAT'E 12020 scMl{ 586].

10, I have hearrl the learnecl cou.nsel for the appellant as well as learne:d A,p.G anrl have also perusecl the material available on record

ancl the casc law citecl at the bar,

11.Uased o11 rny reassessrnent of the eviclence of the PW's especially the nreclical eviderrce ancl othcr meclical reports ancl recovery of empties a t thr: cr:ime scene I fincl trrat the prosecution has proved beyond a rearso*erble cloulrt that Mir Ali Bux (the de"ceersed) was rnurdered by

firearrn a.c1 s.clclain l-lussain was injurred fire arm on 12.a7.2008 at alrout 9,lsam in the complainants house situated in Al-Ata Town Mirptrrkhas;

-lZ, 'l'[re oply L]Lrestion teft Lrefore nre is whether it was the appellant who mr-rr-c{ererl thc cleceasecl by file arm arrd injured Saddam Hussain by firearm at the said title, clate aucl location?

13.After ply reassesslncnL of the cvirience I find that the prosecution has hlOT provecl beyoncl a reasonable dc,ubt the charge against the appellant keeping in view that each criminal case must be decided on its owp par,ticular facts and circumstances fc,r the following reasons;

(u)No cloubt the rlR was lodged with Promptitude within 2 erncl 1/z hoors of the incident aird all the eye witnesses are narnecl in the lrlR trncl the accr-rsed is given the specific role of rnurclering the cleceasecl ancl injuring Saddam Flussain by firearm,

(t', ) [.lo t.lou|.-,t the plosr]cLltion callecl three eye witnesses being l)W I Vlir Natzcer Ahnr.ccl who was also the cornplainant in tlre case, PW 2 iniurecl eye wltness Saddam l{ussain and i,,

a tP 6

cr)mplainant's house to collect his wife and children, DW 2 u,ho \t/as a close frientl of tl-re complainant who saw him in the mclming on the fateful rla1, gave evidence that the aprpellant had tokl irinr that his rn ife hacl asked him to tollect hcr autl tiiat he was going to collect her ancl that he \\/its t-ttrarnterl.

(iii)'l'irus, the presence of the appellant is not deniecl by hirn at the critle scelre, h-r fact it is an admitted position, In essellce there are two rlifferent versions of what happened at the complailtan['s holrse on that fatefr-rl doy,One by tl-re c()nt1-rlainant's sirle and orre b}. the appellant's side, The Ljuestiutr is calt the cotrrplairrant's versiorr be believed beyonrl a leasonable tloubt in the light of the rlefence case antl evirlence. I(eeping in view that from the word go the appellaut closs exatliuecl every eye witness with legard to his tlefence case, which, he lepeatecl in his Section 342 Cr.PC statemeut n,itich he confirmed uncler oath ancl was sr-rpporteri L-ri, two DW's?

(i") I hat,e also alludecl to the fact that all the cornplainant eye wituesses were relatecl to each other anrl in my view each hacl enmity towarrls the appellant as he wanted to take ])an,een his u,ife a\,va), r,rrho was related to all the eye t'r,ittrcsses v\/[rich pr-rts ule o11 cerlition as to their erriclence.lt

I

;lppL'r'lls that cYc \r,ilness Jarrerl \ /as a chance witness as he tlirl not ]ive in the cornplainarrt's house and according Lo hitl he st;ryed over on account of a birthday howevel. fherc i.s tro cvitlencL'tlrat it r,vas any one's i:irthclay ancl this fact uras trot rnentionecl in the FII{. The fact tl-rat so ll]all\r tnale relatives of the complainant were all preserrt irr the tnctrtrinp; oI Lhe incirient at least one of which was a chance vvitness suggests that they lnay have all been calletl together so that they could rnurrler the appellant orr his ar:rivai in the morning hence the phone call to hirn to collect his wife rnight uot have been er-rtirely innocent ancl lc-ncls support to the defence case.

(,') l1' tirt' titrit:trce case is to Lrelii:r,ed tiris explains horry e)re n'ittress Sadclarl l-lussain be,:ame ir-r.1urecl and how the tleceased dieri. Sar-ldanr l-iussain being closely relatecl to the cotnplainarrt anrl living in his house hacl every reason to give false evirlence in orrler to support the conrplaitrattt's case as if the rlefellce case is true he waltecl tt) satrc' the ctlmplainar-rt flonr the legal corlsequences of tnltt'tleritrg tire tleceascrl ancl irrjuring him, allreit by accitietrt/nrisitrke, just- iike chance eye witness Javecl. luterestir-rgl1z PW Zafarullafi wl-ro was the rnashir of all lnL'ino's was also all eye witness irut without any explanation he gave uo evicl(:ltce about the incident a1d orr11, about his role as mashir. which also puts rre to c;rutiou as to the trlrth of the of the eye witness eviclence aucl vt,hether PW Zttfarurllah \A/as plesenf at the tirne of the irrcitlent as allegerl in the FII{ ancl was used as tfte conrplainant's insirle rrran for dealing with the nrashirtlatra's especialll, in relation to the recovery of the pistol ou the allegeci pointation of the appellar-rt.

T

t t

S?]

("i) Iiultherlnore, I find that the key to determining beyoncl reasonal'rle doubt as to what transpired at the con'rplainant's house olr the fateful duy luy with Ms Parveett who was also pr"esent in the house wl-ro couid have given erriderrce as to v,rhose version of events was '{> trlte i.e the contplaiuarrt's sir[e or the deferrce case which vvoulci have settlerl tire matteL'. Ilowever clespite her being trt'ailitble bo give evirlence and being present irr the house at the time of the incident irr-rd having her 5.161 Cr.PC stateureut recorciecl she \^/as rlroppecl from the witness list t any expla Lra tic;n. I'hns, the prosecution has witl-rttr-r cleprivetl th.l cot-tt't qrf solrle of the poterrtially best and trrost irnportiint et,iric'nc-e in t.letemrinirrg the tn-rth in this case. Uur-ier these circutnstar:ces it is well settled by now that untler such circurnstances under Article lTg (g) Qanoon-e-Shahadat Or:r-linance 1984 the court can draw the aclrrerse iuference that h4s Parveen who was at the ceutre of the riispr-rte would not have supportecl the Lrroseclttiotr case in t'espect of the actual ir-rcident which casLes tlou[:L oLr [he e1,e witne,ss erriclence especially as her evirlence was cleliberately l,rrith helcl from the court tlespite her S.161 Cr,irC staternent being recordecl and being on tire list of l,r,itnesses, In this respect reliance is placecl ou the case of Muhanrrned Rafique V State (2010 J SCMI{ 385) which heicl as nnrler;

"'l'lt(, pros(,rutiorr tpitlnul renlizittg tlrc lnct thnt lrc tuts tlrc ttrcsl ittrportnnt tpitness ot-t tlrc issue ,f conspiractl but did not exnnine linl on tlw plen tlnt lrc Tlfis Lu'trtecessftry ruitness. Thus tlte best euiderrce o! corrspiracy r,ufis the stateruent of P.W, Amir Ali ruhiclt, has been withheld by the prosecttliott. lt is usei'l settled that if any party ruitlt holds tlre best piece of euidence then it can fnirly be prestmred that the Ttarty had soffte sinis ter ruotiue behind it. The preiltfttptiott rntder Article lZg(S) of eanufi-e- Slrulmdat Order can fairly be drarun that ,f P.W, Amir Ali wotild haue been exarnined, his euirlettce tuould lnut beerr ttnfauorable to the p r o s ea tti o r r" . (bol ci atld ecl)

A sirnilar view was taken in the cases of I(halid @Khalidi v state (2012 scMR 3zT), IVluhammed Naeem I(han v Maqadas I(han (PLD Z0ZZ SC gg) and Ahrned Ali v State (2023 SCMr{ 781)

(vii)'l'he merlic;rl evitlence supports the conrplainant's ancl aprpclla,t's ,ersicln of events so is of little, if any, assistance to the prosecr,rtion. ,

(r'iii) IJoth the cottrplainant i'rnr-1 the appellapt hacl a 11otive for the murtler arrcl thus the;, cani:el themselves out (i*) The IO who gave evirlence that the rnurcler weapon (pistol) was recoverecl on the pointation of the appelialt was a neighbor and friend of the cornplainant as such the appellattt's contention that the pistol was foistect on him p

I 6 o ]t S '{ (J

t

ceurnot be ruierl out which ir turn rllakes the recovery of empties n t the scerle inconsequential especially if the appellarrt's versiorr is belier, ed as the recovered pistol r.r,oulrl have been the rnurder weapon which would have nrtrtcherl the ernpties as the complainant would have

I

given the pistol to ihe poli*: to foist it orr the appellant rvitlr lris relative arrrl allegeclly eye witness P\N Zafarullah acting as the tr:usted Mashil In any event the appellant has alreatllr l:eeu acq1rittecl in the separate illegal arlrls cast',

(*) It ttoes alstr not appeal to logic, coinrlonsense or reasorl Lhat i1 thc appt:llant harl brutal11, rnurclererl the tleceasecl antl injurerl e1'e vvitness Sacirlarn Hussain in the presence of other .),* wituesses whc knew hirn that l're would sirnpllz go home and allow himself to be arrested, Insteacl the uatural human cclncluct ,,voulcl have been for him to rlin ervr/fly if he cornrnitteid the offence uncler the circutnstirnces as allegrerl b1, tlte cclmplairrarrt.

(*i) 'I'hat the recover)/ of the motor bike at the appeliant's house is of no conseLllrence as the appeliant acimittecl goirrg bv this motorbike to the cornplainant's house in ortler to collect his rn,ife I (xii) 'l'hus, tvlteu I corrsirler tl-re clefence cerse in juxtaposition it,ith the prosecuLicin case I lincl rloubt in the prosecution case especialll, in respect t-rf vrrhat actualll/ transpiled at Lire courplainarrt's house on the fatefr-rl riay. In this respect I placerl reliance on the case of Sabir Ali V State (2071 SCI\4R (:29 which hekl as under in rnaterial part;

"73, Al lltis jtttrctura, re.fert:nce to tlte cfise Ahfuil LlntTttt: t,,'l'1rc Slnta (Pl-D i996 SC 1) tntly he rnnde, rplrcre tlrc nppellnnt tlu:rein lmd tnken tlrc plen of prouocntion, it rprrc obseruer{ tty Snjjnd Ati Shnlr, CJ, hi trc then runs) tlmt "ln tlis cnse Abfurl l-ltque, ruho is nccuserl of rutrder, clnitns tlrc plen o.f gt'nue nnrl sudden prortocntiort nnd stnte.s llml lrc tpts rlt,lt'iut,tl o.f pc,".rer o.f self-corttrol. ln crinfinl IITIS )rttdcltL-a a ttc rnl trh rcittla is llmt prosecution is to pt'()'(t(: _lln, cttsc ttg rrittsl Ilte nctttsed lteuontl doubt nnrl tlris bttrrlctt doas ttot slifi fro 'tt proseutlion erten i f nccused ldit's ttL) (tlttt pttrlic't tlnr plct nrul fn ils in it. If tlwe is arut ro0tn for beru: l'it ol' doubt it t tlrc case of pro'seilttiott, flrc sanre ruill go to acurced and not to proseuttiott. Scctiorr 1AS o.[ tlrc old L]uidetrce Act cffine up for rlettiled exarttittntiott itr tlrc cnse of Safdar Ali a. -I-he Crarutr (PLD 1953 IjC 93) and it was lrcld thnt it is tlrc dtrty o! the court to reaiew entire eaidence that lms beerr produced by tthe proseurtiorr and defense artd after exaniru,ttiort tt f tlrc zult plsqidence if the Corrt rs of tlrc ottittio,rt that there is reasonable tsssibili Ilutt tlrc de nsa tut 0rTu(trr'd br the r.rccttsgd rttipltt be true, thett sttclt aieru woul d react att tlte tuhole proseuttiott cfrse attd ficcu sed would be arttitlcd to batrcfit of dorfut not as n nta tter of grflce bttt tts t ri Irt'becrurce roseuttiort hns not proaed its urse be otrrl refis0n{tble Ioubt".(bok1 acldecl)

a i

P I

A si,rila' rriew \ /as take* in the case of Raza v state (PLD 2020 sc 523) nzhich helcl as uncler i* material part;

"75. ln fi crittthtnl Irinl, it is t.totu jtrisprttdentinlhl setIlt,rl tlrnl rlu: prop(r t'rtt,se 1 .[or tlrc cottr't is to frriit tlist'ttss (tild ttss?ss {ltc prost,t-tttit'ttt euitlent:t, itt orrtir to ttrrit,e nl tlte t^cttu:lusion fis lo tplrcther or not tlrc prosL'crtion lws srtcceederl itt prouittg tlrc chnrge ngainst tlrc ntctts.d on tlrc bnsis of tlrc e,iclince, In case where the accttsed lms tnrcen n specific trtrea the cottrt is to appreciate the proseattion eaidence and the de"fence uersiorr irt juxt,lttsitiort irt orrler to arriae at a jttst cotrchrciofi," (bolcl adclecl).

14' '[hus, based on the prosecution wittrholding the most crucial eviclence of Ms Parveeu who coulcl have,given evictence as to which versiorl, colrlplarinatrt's or appcllants, \,\/r'ts correct /the truth, Lhe fact that the c{c'fellce case vt'}ren place'rl irr jurxtaposition with the prosecution case has cttste doubt oll the prosecution case ancl basecl on the above cliscutssion I hereby accluit the appellant of the charge by extencling him .{ the berrefit of the t{oulrt n,hich he is entitlecl to as of right as opposecl to concession and set aside the impugnecl judgment, allow the appeal with the result that the appellant shall be releasecl unless he is wantecl in any other custocly case,

15.l'hc appc;rl sta.cts riisp'scii ,f i' tiie arb.ve terrns.

I GE ;-=l,rl'ri +s tl tl sSsr] ,AN