Naveed Arshad (Applicant) VS Fawad Khan & another (Respondent)

fiq

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD

Before:

Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi Mr. Justice [Vlohammad Karim Khan Agha Cr. Appeal No.D-47 of 2016

Fawad

Versus

The State .t

Cr. Rev. Application No.D-40 of 2016 Naveed Arshad

Versus.

Fawad Khan and another l

Cr. Acq. A. No.D-06 o12016

Naveed Arshad

Versus.

Haji Hussain and others

I

Appellant / private Through Mr Shamsuddin Khushk, respondent Fawad in Cr. Advocate Appeal No.D-47l2016 and Cr. Rev. A. No.D-40t2016, respectively, as well as private respondents Haji Hussain and others in Cr.

Acq. A. No.D-06/2016

* Applicant / Appeltant Through Mr. lmam Bux Baloch, Advocate Naveed Arshad in Cr. Rev.

Appl. No.D-4012016 and Cr.

Acq. Appeal No.D-06/2016, res ectivel Respondent The State Through Ms. Romeshan Oad, A.P.G r'l D a te o f h e a r n g 1 1 .09.2018 ,i a te of J u d o m e n t 1 1 .09.2018

I tq t

JUDG MENT

MOHA MM AD KA RlM KHA N AGHA J. - Since all t the aforementioned appeals / revision application have arisen out of one and the same impugned judgment dated 1T.02.2016, passed by the learned Additional sessions Judge, shahdadpur in sessions case No.2Tt2012 (crime { No.301/2011 of PS: shahdadpur, under sections 302,324,337-A(i), f(i), L(ii)' E(ixii)' 147,148 and 149 ppc), therefore, we propose to decide the same by this common judgment. The facts and prayers as made by the appellants / applicant in the said matters are that:_ i. ln Cr. Appeal No.D-47 of 2016, appellant Fawad was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadpur in the aforementioned sessions case and as a result being found. guilty of committing the offence by the said impugned judgment dated 17.02.2016, convicted and sentenced under section 302(b) ppC (Taazt) to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.200,0001- uls s44- A cr.P.c. to be paid to the legal heirs of deceased according to law. \ ln case of default in payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to suffer s.l. for 06 months more. Benefit of section 392-8 cr.p.c. was extended to the accused. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment through instant appeal.

ii. ln Cr. Rev. Application No.D-40 of 2016, applicant Naveed Arshad has made a prayer to enhance/convert the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to private respondent Fawad Khan through said impugned judgment to death.

iii. The Criminat Acq. Appeal No.D-06/2016 has been filed by appellant Naveed Arshad, assailing the impugned judgment, whereby the learned trial court after full dressed trial convicted accused Fawad Khan, whereas acquitted the private respondent's ) No. 1 to 6 by giving them the benefit of doubt. ln this acquittal appeal, appellant has prayed that by setting aside the part of the |, impugned judgment dated 1 T.02.2016 regarding acquittar of the t respondents No.1 to 6 and convict the said respondents for the offence charged against them.

J tlL 2 The brief facts of the prosecution case as discrosed in the F.r.R. are that complainant Naveed Arshad lodged F.l.R. at police Station o Shahdadpur, as under:-

"That the comprainant has agricurturar rand in which banana and cotton crops have been curtivated. on 1ot1olzol1, the sons of accused shahzad pathan and Fawad pathan cut the bananas, on this there was dispute between them. on the day of incident, a Faisla was scheduled to be held. The cotton picking was going on by Hari Qurban son of Mumtaz Rajput resident of Sohni Nagar Mohallah, shahdadpur along with his brother Ali Hassan, Ali Ahmed f @ Rano and other family members. At afternoon time, the complainant along with his father namely Arshad Ali son of Ali Ahmed aged about 55 years, brother Nadeem Arshad aged about 32 years and brother shakeel Arshad came on the land. The father of the complainant Arshad Ali having one repeater No. p_ 35633/DBBL of 12 bore, bearing ticense No. 11425lsHD dated t 2211011991 and 30 bore pistol No. 31013352 bearing license No. I 4434lsHD dated 21104i1986 and when they reached at Katchi Rasti at 3.00 p.m. meanwhile accused (1) Shahzad pathan having repeater in his hand, (2) Fawad pathan having pistol, (3) Nawab Pathan having pistol, (a) Bhai Khan pathan having rifle, (5) Badshah Khan Pathan having gun, (6) I\40hiuddin pathan having desi pistol, (7) Yahya Khan Pathan having Lathi/cane, (8) Haider Khan patlian having iron rod, (9) Alam Khan pathan having iron rod, (10) Haji Hussain Pathan having lathi/cane, (1 1) Ameer Khan pathan having spade/Belcha, (12) Jamal Khan pathan having lathi/cane, and three unknown persons came over there and they started firing upon the complainant party with intention to kill them. The accused shahzad with his repeater and accused Fawad with his pistol fired upon the brother of complainant namely Nadeem Arshad which hit on his J chest, leg and foot. The accused Nawab with his pistol and Badshah Khan with his gun fired upon the father of comprainant namery Arshad Ali which hit on reft side of his abdomen, arm and on regs. The brother of complainant Nadeem Arshad and father Arshad Ali rl fell down on the land. The weapons of father of complainant, mobile phones and Nlc and mobile phone of brother of complainant and his Nlc were taken by the accused persons. The comprainant tried to

I

save the injured arong with his Haris but the accused persons ! caused lathi and iron rods brows to them and run away from the spot while firing in the air. The brother of complainant shakeel o Arshad, Qurban, Ali Hassan and Ari Ahmed @ Rano sustained injuries on their face, backside, arms and other parts of the body. Due to firing of accused persons, their companion Mohiuddin and yanya tthan also received injuries. The comprainant party raised cries and on their cries, Nisar Ahmed son of Mukhtiar Ahmed Arain and Rashid son of Rasheed arso rushed towards the cries. on seeing them the accused persons run away from the spot whire taking their injured companion with them arong with the weapons, mobire phones and { Nlcs of father and brother of complainant. The complainant saw that his brother Nadeem Arshad had died and his father was seriously injured who was taken to Taluka Hospital shahdadpur. The slp Dodo Khan also reached at hospitar arong with porice staff. The father of the complainant succumbed to his injuries. slp Dodo Khan completed the legal formalities and post mortem was conducted. He issued letter for medical treatment of the injured. The complainant took away the dead bodies of his father and brother to his house. His uncle Akber came to shahdadpur in rate hours and the complainant narrated the facts to him who advised him to lodge the FIR against the accused persons. Then the complainant went to police station and lodged the FIR against the accused persons.,,

3.After completing the usual investigation, porice submitted challan against the above named accused persons by showing accused Fawad Khan, Haji Hussain pathan, yahya Khan pathan and l/ohiuddin pathan in custody, whereas co-accused shahzad pathan, Nawab pathan, Haider Khan, Alam Khan pathan son of Amir Khan pathan, Bhai Khan pathan, Badshah Khan Pathan, Ameer Khan pathan, Jamar Khan pathan, Faiz Mohammad Pathan, Aram Khan pathan son of Meer Dad pathan and I Adoo son of Qatai Khan pathan were shown as absconders.

4.A formal charge against the accused was framed alEx. 14to which ! $;"/ they pleaded not guirty and craimed to be tried at Ex. 15 to t

5.During proceeding of the case, accused Alam Khan, Hyder Khan, 3t and Amir Khan were also arrested and their supplementary challan ',di"t 'u 'i was

E submitted before the trial Court

I

tlB 6' Thereafter, an amended charge was framed against a, present accused persons at Ex. 21, to which they preaded not guirty and craimed to be tried vide their respective pleas at Ex. 22 to 28.

7 ' ln order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and thereafter learned ADpp closed the side of the prosecution vide his statement Ex.4Z.

8' statements of the accused / appeilant / private respondents were recorded under section 342 cr.p.c. at Ex.43 to 49, in which they have denied the allegations of prosecution while claiming their innocence. ln their statements, accused stated that in fact, both the deceased duly -,f, I armed with weapons came at the house of Mohiuddin pathan, attacked upon him caused fire arm injuries to him. ln the result, shahzad pathan who is now dead came out and in response and he fired at both the deceased. ln the result, both of them received injuries. ln revenge, the complainant had involved whole pathan community in this case falsely.

The father of injured accused Mohiuddin lodged FIR No. 34otzo11 and his medical certificates already produced in this case by the Medical t officer which is on record. Accused Fawad Khan produced photo stat copy I of FIR No. 340/2011 at Ex. 43/A. However, they did not examine themselves on oath nor led any witness in their defense.

I

9.The learned trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on the assessment of the entire evidence convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant / private respondent Fawad Khan and acquitted the private respondents Haji Hussain, yahya Khan, Mohiuddin, Alam Khan, Hyder Khan and Ameer Khan, as stated above.

10' The facts of this case as well as evidence produced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court therefore the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.

11 Mr. shamsuddin Khushk, learned counsel for the appellant / private respondents has contended that all the witnesses are highly interested, friends and relatives of complainant; that there is no motive behind the murder; that accused Fawad pathan has not committed the murder of any deceased and has been falsely implicated in this case; that there is material contradictions in the evidence of PWs; that all the formalities have

I 4

t11 been completed by the police at police station; that the deceased had not received any bullet injury on their bodies but they sustained pellet injuries t on their bodies which was caused to them by pro-claimed offender Shahzad; that the complainant was not available at the p lace of incident at a the time of incident and the story has been concocted and made lmprovement in the prosecution case; that there is delay in the registration { of F.l'R. for about nine (g) hours and no any plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant in this regard; that the prosecution case is highly doubtful; therefore, the benefit of the doubt may be given to the accused persons. He has lasfly prayed for acquittal of accused Fawad Khan and dismissal of the criminal revision as well as criminal acquittal ) appeal.

12.Mr. lmam Bux Baloch, learned counsel for appellant / applicant Naveed Arshad has contended that prosecution has successfuily proved its case against Fawad Khan pathan and all the other acquitted co- accused; that the motive of murder has been fully established; that all the surroundings and circumstantial evidence direcfly connecting the accused / { private respondents with the commission of offence; that all witnesses have furnished reliable and trustworthy evidence; that the defense could not succeed to shatter the credibility and veracity of prosecution witnesses; that accused Fawad Khan Pathan has played main role of making firing upon complainant's brother; that the accused do not deserve any leniency, therefore the conviction of life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to Fawad Khan Pathan may be enhanced / converted to death and the private respondents in cr. Acq. A. No.D-06/2016 also should be convicted as the prosecution had proved its case against them beyond a reasonable doubt and should also be sentenced to death. ln support of his contention in respect of enhancement of sentence from life to death in the case of Fawad Khan Pathan and sentence of death to the other private r4 respondents he relied upon the case of Muhammad Mansha V The state t. (2016 SCMR 958).

13.Learned A.P.G. appearing for the state while supporting the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court, has contended that with regard to Fawad Khan pathan there is more than sufficient evidence on record to show that the prosecution had proved its case against him

I

beyond a reasonable doubt but with regard to the other private respondents she conceded that they had righfly been acquitted by the trial

l ?oo court by giving them the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, she did not support the enhancement of sentence from life to death in the case of Fawad Khan Pathan as she was of the view that there was sufficient mitigating evidence to justify the trial court not sentencing him to death.

14.we have heard the rearned counser for the parties, perused the evidence brought on record alongwith impugned judgment and the relevant l

law with their able assistance.

15' Turning firstly to appellant Fawad's appeal against conviction. lt is settled law that a conviction can be brought home with the evidence of one eye witness alone without corroboration if he is reliable, trust worthy and \ confidence inspiring. ln this respect reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ehsan v. The state (2006 s c M R 1857) where it was held at P.1860 at Para 6 as under:

"6. lt is true that there is only ocular testimony of p.W. 4 Mst. Khatun Bibi corroborated by medical evidence, p.W. 6 Dr. Muhammad Sarfraz Sial. The fact that there is only ocular testimony of one p.W. which is unimpeachable and confidence-inspiring corroborated by medical evidence would be sufficient to base conviction. !t be notei that this Gourt has time and again held that the rute of corroboration is rule of abundant caution and not a mandatory rule to be applied invariably in each case rather this is settfed t principle that if the court is satisfied about the truthfulnesd of direct evidence, the requirement of corroborative evidence would not be of much significance in that, as it may as in the present case eye-witness account which is unimpeachable and confidence-inspiring character and is corroborated by medical evidence". (bold added)

16.ln this case we find the complainant's evidence to be confidence inspiring and importantly is corroborated by two other eye witnesses who are not chance witnesses but natural witnesses who have not been shattered let alone damaged on cross examination and saw the appellant shoot deceased Nadeem Arshad with a pistol.

a

17.with regard to interested witnesses based on the evidence before us we do not consider this to be of much, if any, relevance and in this respect reference is made to the cases of Muhammad Ehsan (supra) Naik Muhammad alias Naika and another v. The state (2007 s c M R 1639) and Ameer Ali v state (1ggg MLD 75g (Lahore). This is more so since no animus or enmity has been shown towards/against the appellant by arry of r'.', I the P.Ws.

,y

I 9al

18.lt is true that there are some discrepancies/contradictions in the evidence of some pW's however we consider such discrepancies/contradictions to be of only a minor nature and ryhen considered against the totarity of the evidence to be of ritfle, t if any, significance in the context of this case. ln this respect reference may be made to the cases of zaktr Khan & others v. The state (1g9s scMR 1793) and Ameer Ali V State (1999 MLD 758 (Lahore).

19.Furthermore, this is a day light incident; that there is no doubt from the evidence that this incident took place; there is no case of mistaken identity; there was no unreasonable delay in filing the F.l.R. and whatever minor delay there was has been adequately explained by the complainant who had to take his injured father to hospital before registering the F.l.R. and as such is not fatal to the prosecution's case and in this respect reliance is placed on Bukhti-Harem v sabir (2016 p.cr.LJ 140g) and Roshan Ali solanghi V state (rvrLD 2017 560); that the appellant was both nominated and given a specific role in the F.l.R.; that the appellant was present at the scene; that the recovery of the pistol was made from l. the appellant along with the cNlc of the deceased Nadeem; that 4 pistol empties were found at the scene which according to the FSL report were fired from the pistol recovered from the appellant; that according to the eye witnesses whose evidence, as mentioned earlier, we consider both reliable and corroborative the appellant Fawad shot the complainants brother Nadeem with the recovered pistol which finds support from the medical report and other evidence on record; that the chemical analysis also proved positive; that there was a motive for the murder namely dispute over the cutting of the complainants banana's by Fawad and shezad,s sons for which a faisla had already been flxed for the day of the incident; that the s.161 statements of the pw's were taken shorfly after the incident and that there was no material improvement in their evidence before the ,4 trial court; that the appellant and the co-accused attempted to make out a i counter case by lodging an F.r.R. against the comprainants party but tellingly when this was disposed of by the magistrate in ,,c', crass no attempts were made to appear this decision by the appellant or any of the co-accused, during the course of his arguments before this court the appellant has now narrated yet another new defense namely ,i.''', r\ that of alibi ' however this was never raised at his triar, is contrary to his s.i42 statement and no evidence was br ught on record in support t of his alibi;

that in our view the prosecution evidence is mainly consistent in all respects with only a few minor contradictions; that the prosecution story and evidence adduced by the prosecution, which has not been damaged let alone shattered during cross examination, in our view reflects the true occurrence of events

20- lt is a well setfled principle of criminal law that it is for the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond a shadow of a doubt and if there is any doubt in the prosecutions case the benefit of such doubt, as set out in the case of rariq pervez v. The state (1995 scMR 1345) must go to the appeilant as of right as opposed to concession. However in considering this aspect of the case we are also guided {a by the tt case of Faheem Ahmed Farooqui v state (2oog scMR 1572) where it was held as under at p.1576 at para D

"lt needs no reiteration that for the purpose of giving benefit of doubt to an accused person, more than one-infiririty is not required, a single infirmity creating reasonable douUt in the mind of a reasonabte and prudent mind regarding the truth of the charge makes the whole case doubtrut. Me-rely because the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence it does not absolve the prosecution from its duty to prove its case against il-B accused beyond any shadow of doubt.,,(bold added) 21 ln the recent supreme court case of Hashim easim V state t (criminal Appeats No.115 and 116 of 2013) dated 12th April 2017 the Hon'ble supreme court in respect of the benefit of doubt held as under at Para 20:

"Even a singre doubt, if found reasonabre, wourd entifle the accused person to acquittal and not a combination of several doubts is bedrock principle of justice. Reference may be made to ["_..3." of Riaz Masih @ Mithoo v. The State 1ruLn 1SSS Crl. 6e4).',

22.ln this case however when the evidence is read in totality there t lr would be no doubt in a reasonable and prudent person's mind that appellant was guilty of the offense for which he has been charged the not with standing the few minor contradictions in the evidence of the pw,s which even otherwise are not fatal to the prosecutions case.

23- ln our view the evidence of the key pw's on a whole is. reliabre, trustworthy and confidence inspiring none of whom were seriously l:'i damaged, if at all, during cross examination. such evidence in our view

ffi also represents a continuous chain of evidence from the time of the crime

t0 z03 connecting the appellant to the crime especially when the medical, ballistic and chemical evidence is taken into account. we also note that all the issues raised by the appeilant have arready been fuily deart with in the impugned judgment in a very detaired and meticurous manner by reference to the evidence and the relevant law.

I

24 As such the appear against conviction by appeilant Fawad is hereby dismissed

25.with regard to the enhancement of sentence from life imprisonment to death it is true that the only mitigating factor mentioned in the impugned judgment to justify this is the appellants advanced age being s6. we do not

I find this reason to be sufficient mitigation to not impose the death sentence even when coupled with the submission of the appellant that he was not a habitual offender which in our view can hardly be considered as a mitigating factor in a murder case. However, when considering mitigating factors we have attempted to take a holistic approach by weighing all the potential factors and when taken together seeing if they may amount to some mitigation. Namely, it appears that the appellant is now about 63 years of age; that he has already spent approximately g years in.jail; that the complainant's father came armed to the scene and thus the circumstances were confrontational; that it was not a frenzied brutal attack by the appellant in that he fired only a few bullets at the complainant,s brother and none at his father (who was also killed during the incident by other co-accused) or any one else in the complainants parly and thus considering all the above factors when taken together and the principle that justice should also be tempered with mercy we hereby dismiss the criminal revision for enhancement of appellants Fawad,s sentence from life to death and leave the sentence as set out in the impugned judgment in tact.

' .t

26.Turning to the appear against acquittar of the co-accused. The a parameters for an appeal against acquittal to succeed are much narrower than in the case of an appeal against conviction. lt is setfled law that judgment of acquittal should not be interjected until findings are perverse, arbitrary, foolish, artificial, speculative and ridiculous as held by the Honorable supreme courl in the case of rhe state v. Abdut xtratiq aia b- others (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 554). Moreover, the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is narrow and limited because in an

I

l1 zoq acquittal the presumption of the innocence is significanfly added to the cardinal rule of criminaljurisprudence as the accused shall be presumed to be innocent untir proved guirty. rn other words, the presumption of innocence is doubred as herd by the Honourabre supreme court of Pakistan in the above referred judgment. The relevant para is reproduced hereunder:-

"16. we have heard this case at a considerable length stretching on quite a number of dates, and with the able assistance of the learned counsel-for the parties, have thoroughly scanned every material piece of evidence avairabre on the Lcord; an exercise primarily necessitated with reference to the conviction appeal, and also to ascertain if the conclusions of the courts below are against the evidence on the record and/or in vioration of the law. tn iny event, ,fi before embarking upon scrutiny of the various preas of raw ind fact raised from both the sides, it may be mentioned that both the learned counsel agreed that the criteria of interference in the judgment against acquittal is not the same, as against cases involving a conviction. ln this behalf, it shall be relevant to mention that the following precedents provide a fair, setfled and consistent view of the superior courts about the rules which should be followed in such cases; the dicta are:

Bashir Ahmed v. Fida Hussain and 3 others (zo'ro scMR 4ds), Noor Mali Khan v. Mir Shah Jehan and anoiher (2005 pCr.LJ 352), lmtiaz Asad v. Zain-ul-Abidin and another (ZOOS pCr.LJ 393), Rashid Ahmed v. Muhammad Nawaz and others (2006 9CMR 1152), Barkat Ati v. Shaukat Ati and others (2004 SCMR 249), Mulazim Hussain v. The State and another (2010 pCr.LJ 926), Muhammad rasweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 02 others (PLD 2009 SC 53), Farhat Azeem v. Asmat U[ah and 6 others t (2008 SCMR 1285), Rehmat Shah and 2 others v. Amir Gul and 3 others (1995 scMR 139), The State v. Muhammad sharif and 3 others (1995 SCMR 635), Ayaz Ahmed and another v. Dr. Nazir Ahmed and another (2003 pCr. LJ 1935), Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Zafar and 2 others (pLD 1992 SC 1), Allah Bakhsh and another v. Ghulam Rasool and 4 others (1ggg SCMR 223), Najaf Saleem v. Lady Dr. Tasneem and others (2004 yLR 407i; Agha wazir Abbas and others v. The state and others (200'5 !C.[4R 1175), Mukhtar Ahmed v. The Slate (1994 SCMR 2211), Rahimullah Jan v. Kashif and another (pLD 2OOg SC 29g), Khan v. Sajiad and 2 others (2004 SCMR 215), Shafique Ahmad v. A Muhammad Ramzan and another (1995 SCMR BS5); The State v. lblul Ghaffar (1996 SCMR 678) and Mst. Saira Bibi v. Muhammad Asif and others (2009 SCMR 946).

From the ratio of alllhe above pronouncements and those cited by the learned counsel for the parties, it can be deduced that the scope of interference in appeal against acquittal is most narrow and limited, ffi b9gau.s9 in an acquittal the presumption of innocence is significanily added to the cardinal rule of criminarjurisprudence, that ari accused shall be presumed to be innocent is doubied. The courts itrall be t,l . !

very slow in interfering with such an acquittaljudgment, unlesS h\'. t. it is shown to be peryerse, passed in gross viotation of law,

2C9a suffering from the.errors of grave misreading the. evidence; such juogmeits or non-reading of ;;;rd not b-e riglriiy'intertereo and heavy burden- riJs on $,"- pi""ecution presumption of innocence which to rebut the the accused has earned and attained on account of his acquittai. rt has been categoricaily held in a ptethora of judgment! irr"i'int"rference of acquittal is rare in a judgment liro Irre pr""""uiion must show that there are. glaring errors of law and fact committea uy ttre-Cou* in arriving at the decision, which woutd ,"suit I miscarriage_ of justice; tfre acquitt f jragr"nt into grave I is perfunctory or wholly artificial or a shocridg c#ctusion has Moreover, in number of dictfini-oitf,i" Court, been drawn. ca-tegorically raid down that such judgment it has been interjected until the findings siroutJ not ue pJrrr."e, arbitrary, footish, "r" (Emphrri" artificial, specutative and riiicutous coY.tt of appeal shourd not interfere simpty for =rppitlai. The the reason h on th.e re-appraisar of the evidence a different conctusion ttrat possibly be arrived at, the factuat conctusions courd ll shourd not be upset, except when palpabty perverse, suffering from and material factuat infirmiiies. rt is averred in The serious state v.

sharif (1ees scMR 635) rni Mrhrrmao Y:1"1f.:o KaJa Fahim Afzar and_2 0thers (1gg8 scMR 1281) ryainnmao v. thatihe supreme court being the finar forum wouto be chary and hesitant to inierfere in the findings of the courts berow. rt is, iherefor", ano imperative that the above criteria and the guideiines "if"ai"nt ,rrorro o" followed in deciding these appeats.,'(botd alded) t

27.As discussed earlier in this judgment, an accused is also entifled to the beneflt of the doubt.

28' ln our view, arthough there may be some evidence against some of the co-accused for their involvement in the complainants father,s murder keeping in view that the PW's are not fully corroborative in this respect, the extremely narrow scope of appears against acquittar as mentioned above and the fact that the co-accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the doubre presumption of innocence having again reviewed the evidence against the co-accused on barance we consider that the co- accused are entifled to the benefit of the doubt and that the impugned judgment has righfly acquitted them on this basis and as such the appear trl against their acquittal is dismissed.

29' For what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment is based upon valid and sound reasons, is entirely in consonance with the raw

hh ', court of Pakistan and there is no regar the criminarAppear No.D-47l2016, raid down by the Honourabre suprerie infirmity in the same. Resurtanfly,

' cr. Rev. Apprication No.D-40/2016 and cr' Acq' A. No.D-06 of 2016 are without merit and the same were dismissed in open court today by

short order, which reads as under:-

.t l3 2a6 "Parties' counsel have been heard at length. They have concluded their arouments. For the reasons to be recorded riter on, cr' Appear ruo.o-iz of 2016, Cr. nev. n. No.D-40 0f 2016 and cr. Acq' A' No.D-06 of 2016 are oismiiseo arongwith applications."

the risted

96/- i'^UHalvlttAD Ii.*RIM KtiAN I_GEA, Ji.jjlGE"11 .9.2018.

gd/- A8rUl, I"rAelIK GADU,

JULGE.

r'\_

c,f O\r- t L8

ASSN

I