Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD KHAN alias KHANI VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Muhammad Siddiq,Mian Mohyuddin Ahmad
1968 P Cr
1968 P Cr. L J 1838
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Siddiq, J
MUHAMMAD KHAN alias KHANI-Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE-Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 119 of 1968, decided on 15th July 1968.
Witness----
Credibility of witness-Indivisible-Testimony of witness rejected against one accused--Cannot be accepted against another without adequate evidence in corroboration.
Muhammad Faiz Bakhsh v. The Queen P L D 1959 P C 24; Ahmad Khan v. Tire State P L D 1962 Lah. 390 and Abdul Raziq v. The State P L D 1964 Pesh. 67 fol.
Mian Mohyuddin Ahmad for the State.
Date of hearing: 10th July 1968.
JUDGMENT
This is a petition for revision against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali, dated the 23rd of September 1967, by which he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction under section 307, P. P. C., and accepted the appeal filed by the three co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Faujdar, Inayat and Saif Ullah.
2. According to the prosecution, Muhammad Akram (P. W. 3) had gone on the 7th of January 1967, to the shop of Karim Bakhsh (P. W. 4) for a shave. He was at that time attacked by the petitioner who was armed with a pistol, and by the three acquitted accused who were armed with shot-guns. All the accused had fired at Muhammad Akram P. W. with their respective weapons and the fires of the petitioner and Said Ullah had found a target, the fires of the other two having gone by it. The occurrence was witnessed by Karim Bakhsh (P. W. 4), Haji Saleh Muhammad (P. W. 5), Sher Khan (P. W. 6), Ghulam Akbar (P. W. 7) and Faizullah, who was not examined. The culprits decamped with their weapons firing in the air. Muhammad Akram was lifted on a cot and taken to the Police Station and on the way Shahabal Shah A. S. I. was met and he recorded the statement of Muhammad Akram (Exh: P. A.) on the basis of which the case was formally registered at the Police Station.
3. Muhammad Akram P. W. was medically examined by Dr. Muhammad Sharif (P. W. 11) who found the following injuries on his person:-
(1) A fire-arm wound of entry 4" x 4" x going into the shoulder-joint on the upper part of. left shoulder joint.
(2) A fire wound of entry 4" x 4" x going into the left shoulder-joint 1" below injury No. 1.
(3) A fire wound of entry 4" x 4" x going into the left shoulder-joint about " to the left of injury No. 1.
(4) Two gunshot wounds of entry with same character as above, about " below injury No. 3.
(5) A gun-shot wound of entry having same character about " to the right of injury No. 4.
(6) A gun-shot wound with same character as above about " above injury No. 5.
(7) A gunshot wound 4" x " scorched margins on the centre of lower lip.
4. The petitioner and his co-accused pleaded false implication due to enmity. Eight D. Ws. were also produced to establish alibi of the three acquitted accused.
5. The learned trial Magistrate had found all the four accused guilty under section 307/34, P. P. C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years' each and also a fine of Rs. 500 each. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, rejected the evidence of Slier Khan (P. W. 6) and Ghulam' Akbar (P. W. 7) and acquitted Faujdar, Inayat and Saifullah who had also been found innocent by the investigation police as shown in column No. 2 of the police report. The learned Court of first appeal, however, accepted in part the testimony of Karim Bakhsh (P. W. 4), and Haji Saleh Muhammad (P. W. 5) and uphold the conviction of the petitioner and the sentences awarded against him. The petition for revision was admitted by my learned brother Muhammad Afzal Cheema, J., on the principal ground that the evidence on which the conviction of the petitioner was upheld had been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, with regard to the conviction of the three acquitted accused.
6. In this petition for revision, sent through jail, I have gone through the record with the assistance of Mr. Mohy-Ud-Din Ahmad, counsel for the State. The learned counsel concedes that there is no evidence in support of the conviction of the present petitioner in addition to the testimony of Karim Bakhsh (P. W. 4) and Haji Saleh Muhammad (P. W. 5) who had been disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of Faujdar, Inayat and Saifullah, accused. The principle of law is firmly established that the credibility of a witness is indivisible and that the testimony of witness rejected against one accused cannot be accepted against another without adequate evidence in corroboration vide Muhammad Faiz Bakhsh v. The Queen (P L D 1959 P C 24), Ahmad Khan v. The State (P L D 1962 Lah. 390) and Abdul Raziq v. The State (P L D 1964 Pesh. 67).
7. Since there is no evidence against the present petitioner in addition to the statements of Karim Bakhsh and Haji Saleh Muhammad P. Ws., which had been disbelieved in material parts in respect of the acquitted accused, it is not safe to uphold the conviction of the petitioner on the basis of the said statements without any other evidence in corroboration. I, therefore, allow this petition for revision and set aside the conviction recorded against the petitioner and the sentences of imprisonment and fine awarded against him. He shall be set at liberty at once unless required to be retained in some other case.
Petition allowed.