Find a Lawyer

Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 114 of 1985, decided on 20th May, 1987.

‑‑‑S. 326‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Prosecution witnesses interested, connected inter se and not truthful‑‑witnesses made statements contrary to each other and their evidence full of contradictions‑‑Improvements made by witnesses in case set up in first information report‑‑Version of witnesses about injuries belied by medical evidence‑‑No identification parade was held though witness had admitted that he had not seen the accused before occurrence‑‑Statement of Investigation Officer. that he recorded first information report which was read over to complainant who admitted its contents as correct, contradicted by testimony of complainant who deposed that first information report was not read over to him but he was sent to hospital‑‑Investigating Officer stated that accused voluntarily came to police station and was arrested but no Mashirnama of arrest was produced‑‑Medico‑legal report stated to have been received by Investigating Officer but no medical officer was produced at trial‑ Prosecution failing to examine one of eye‑witnesses who was named in first information report and no explanation given therefor‑‑Held: Trial Court for cogent, valid and sound reasons disbelieved credibility of prosecution witnesses and judgment of Trial Court acquitting accused was neither perverse or unreasonable nor manifestly wrong‑‑Interference declined in order of acquittal in circumstances.

Tawaib Khan v. The State P L D 1970 SC 13 and Yaqoob Shah v. The State P L D 1976 SC 56 ref.

Sheo Swarup and others v. King Emperor A I R 1934 PC 227; Ahmed v. The Crown P L D 1951 FC 107; Abdul Majid v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of East Pakistan P L D 1964 SC 422 and Gul Nawaz v. The State 1968 S C M R 1168(2) rel.

Syed Murtaza Hussain for the State.

Ramchand Rangwani and Gul Zaman for Respondents.

Dates of hearing: 4th and 5th May, 1987.

‑‑This is an appeal under section 417, Cr.P.C. on behalf of the State through Advocate‑General. Ex‑ Officio, Public Prosecutor, challenging the acquittal of accused/respondents, namely, Mahmud Ashraf and Wazir Ashraf, both sons of Ashraf Khan, resident of Wazir Building, Tirath Street, Karachi, who were tried for an offence under section 326, P.P.C. The case was tried by the learned Magistrate of First Class, Garden and Nabi Bux, Karachi, who by his judgment, dated 8‑6‑1980 acquitted them of the charge.

2. The facts of the prosecution case as stated‑in the F.I.R. lodged at Police Station Preedy of Karachi, are as under:‑

'I am employed in Pakistan Electronics Centre, Quran Mehal Lane near Aurangzeb Park. M/s. Wazir Ashraf and Mahmood Ashraf had given one radiogram in the shop for repairs. Today when my employer Mohammad Sultan was not present in the shop, they came at about 10‑00 a.m. and said that I should return their radiogram as it was. I told them that I shall return the same after the arrival of the employer, but they insisted. When I prevented them, they both were going to take away the radio forcibly. When prevented them strongly and told them to take away the radio, on arrival of the employer, they both began to beat me. Wazir Ashraf picked up a bottle and hit at me. Bottle was broken, pieces whereof were scattered as well as some hit Mohammad Ashraf also. My complaint is that he hit the (broken) bottle, which was in his hand. on my left ear as a result of which the upper part was cut. Ashraf gave me Danda' blows. M/s. Ahsan Ahmed, Tassawar, Moin Ahmed, Anis etc. and people of the area arrived who have got me separated. I, therefore, have come to report. My complaint against M/s. Wazir Ashraf and Mahmood Ashraf is of chopping off my left ear, by hitting me with a bottle. I have come to report, action betaken"

3. The F.I.R. Ex.1/A eras recorded by P.W.7 S.I.P. Mohammad Jaffer. The S.I.P., thereafter proceeded to the scene of offence alongwith complainant where he prepared site inspection memo. (Ex.8) in the presence of Mashirs Mohammad Ashraf (P.W.8) and Mohammad Suleman (P.W.9). He also seized blood‑stained broken pieces of glass. He sent the complainant to civil hospital for medical treatment and examination, through police constable. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. Mohammad Sultan, Salim Ahmed and Anis. He then returned to the police station duty where accused Mahmood Ashraf voluntarily appeared requesting him to get the matter settled amicably. He arrested accused Mahmood Ashraf who was slightly injured and sent him (accused Mahmood Ashraf) through constable to hospital for medical examination and report. The co‑accused Wazir Ashraf could not be arrested as he had obtained bail from the Court. He then recorded the statements of remaining P.Ws., namely Tassawar Hussain and Mohammad Ahsan. Later on he received medico‑legal report of the complainant Sharif Hussain. Thereafter he also received supplementary medico‑legal report in respect of the said injured. He also received the medico‑legal report of accused Mahmood Ashraf. He thereafter challaned both the accused persons to face trial under section 326, P.P.C.

4. Dr. Allah Bachayo Memon, P.W.8, who examined the complainant/injured Sharlf Hussain has been examined to prove injuries on person of the complainant. He has stated that there were following injuries on his body.

"Injury No. 1 incised wound left pinna upper part 1" x 1/4" entire thickness. The cut pieces was attached with small pieces of skin.

Injury No. 2 incised wound left ear upper part vertical 1" x 1/4" x skin deep.

Injury No. 3 incised wound left forearm front 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep.

Injury No. 4 incised wound right hand base of thumb 1" x 1/4" x skin deep. The nature of injury No. 1 was keep reserved the rest of the injuries were simple kind of weapon used sharp‑edged. Probable duration of injury fresh. Mark of identification of injured as injury No. l."

He re‑examined the injured on 21‑12‑1973 and noted:‑

"The cut piece of ear did not unite and had to be removed. The injury has caused permanent disfiguration. Hence nature of injury No. 1 is grievous:"

In this very context, it might be mentioned that the S.I.P. Mohammad Jaffer, P.W.7 has also mentioned that accused Mahmood Ashraf had been referred to the hospital though the doctor who had examined his injuries has riot been examined in Court.

5. The Magistrate had examined five witnesses when he adjourned the case to 10‑12‑1979 for examining the remaining witnesses. On the above noted date the Magistrate acquitted both the accused Mahmood Ashraf and Wazir Ashraf under section 249, Cr.P.C. The State thereupon filed a criminal acquittal appeal before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court on 13‑1‑1983 held the said order of acquittal as unwarranted and, consequently, the impugn.‑d order of acquittal was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for completing the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

6. In compliance with the above‑noted order of this Court the Magistrate examined the remaining witnesses.

7. The respondents who are real brothers denied their complicity in the crime and attributed their involvement on account of enmity between P.W. Sultan Ahmed and respondent Wazir Ashraf, who has a shop near the shop of P.W. Mohammad Sultan. The accused Mahmood Ashraf has been impleaded because he is brother of the respondent Wazir Ashraf. The respondents also examined one Naimuzzaman, P.W. 1 to establish their enmity with P.W. Mohammad Sultan who had a shop near the garage where the car of respondent Wazir Ashraf was parked. They have also produced certain documents including photographs of the premises in possession of P.W. Mohammad Sultan and the accused Wazir Ashraf, to show that they are sufficiently well to do persons.

8. The prosecution case is based on the ocular testimony of five witnesses, namely, P.W.1, Syed Sharif Hussain, complainant/injured, P.W.2, Anis, P.W. 3 Mahmood Ahsan, P.W.4 Tasawar Hussain and P.W. 6 Salim Ahmed.

9. The trial Court has acquitted respondents/accused for the following reasons.

(i) Witnesses are interested, none of them is from locality, and therefore, they cannot be relied upon.

(ii) The prosecution story is improbable, the eye‑witnesses are false and their evidence being in contradiction with the medical evidence cannot be; relied upon.

(iii) The story of taking away the radiogram by the accused without payment of repairing charges of Rs.80 is an improvement in the original case and an afterthought.

10. We have heard Mr. Murtaza Hussain, learned counsel for the State, and have also considered the evidence on record. We have also heard the complainant who appeared before us in person. We have also heard Mr. Gul Zaman Khan, learned counsel for the respondent, who was assisted by Mr. Ramchand Rangwani, Advocate.

11. The learned counsel for the State has laid great emphasis upon the facts that the F.I.R. was lodged without any delay. No motive is forthcoming to falsely implicate the accused. He stated that Mahmood Ashraf, respondent/accused was injured as is evident from Ex.8/E at page 84 of the paper book. The Investigating Officer in his statement has so deposed. He further urged that it was not challenged in cross‑examination. The said accused has not even assailed it in cross‑examination. The counsel then emphasised that the Situation as adopted in accused's statement was not put to the P.Ws. According to him, the learned Magistrate has proceeded on surmises and gestures. The contradictions in the evidence of witnesses, according to Mr. Murtaza Hussain was due to long lapse of time and on account of forgetfulness of witnesses. He submitted that it is for the Courts to find out the real truth from the evidence of the witnesses and merely because a part of the evidence is found to be not worthy of precedence the other part cannot be discarded for that reason. In this connection he sought to place reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Tawaib Khan v. The State reported in P L D 1970 SC 13. In that case it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:‑

" .The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' has all along been discarded by the Courts in this country. Similarly, the rule that the integrity of a witness is indivisible, despite its moral virtue, has not been endorsed by the superior Courts of this country without reservations and cannot be accepted as one of universal applications. In the last analysis, as stated in some of the eminent judicial decisions, the grain has to be sifted from the chaff' n each case, in the light of its own particular circumstances."

12. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Magistrate has wrongly mentioned that name of Anis does not appear in the F.I.R. He read over the relevant part from the F.I.R. which contains the name of Anis as witness. He further urged that no enmity as alleged by the defence was established. The complainant raised cries which attracted certain peoples and all the witnesses that have come to depose in the instant case are nothing but natural witnesses. He also urged that the mere fact that some persons of the locality or neighbourhood have not been produced as a witness cannot be made a good ground for discarding the evidence of the natural witnesses, produced by the prosecution. The counsel submitted that it is the privilege for the prosecution to produce witnesses of its own choice and it cannot be compelled for any good reasons to produce necessarily the persons from the neighbourhood of the place of occurrence. The learned counsel, therefore, vehemently urged that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is based on speculations and findings recorded by him are based on misreading of the evidence. He, therefore, urged that it is a fit case wherein this Court should for proper dispensation of justice re‑examine the evidence and draw its own conclusions therefrom.

13. Making his submissions regarding the non‑production of the other independent witnesses of the locality, the learned State counsel sought to place reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yaqoob Shah v. The State reported in P L D 1976 SC 56 wherein it has been held as under:‑

" It is a frequent experience of Criminal Courts that many a gruesome tragedy .is enacted, with scores of onlookers around, yet the assassin is allowed to operate without any let or hindrance and is allowed to escape from the scene, with impunity. Not only that. These independent' onlookers are not even prepared to say in Court what they have seen and thereby risk animosity of the assassin or his partisans:

14. Lastly, he urged that the evidence of P.W. Anis is compatible with that of the injured. Concluding his arguments Mr. Murtaza Hussain submitted that all the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. They are all natural witnesses and there was no allegation of enmity or ill‑will between the accused persons and the prosecution witnesses thus it has been wrongly held by the trial Court that they are interested witnesses.

15. The complainant submitted that the impugned order, dated 12-1‑1985 having been passed by the learned A.C.M. after the passing of the stay order on the transfer application of the complainant was a nullity. He placed before us, for our perusal, a certified copy of the order of the learned District Judge in support of his contention.

16. Mr. Ramchand Rangwani, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that this order of stay was communicated to the learned A.C.M. after the passing of the impugned order on 12‑1‑1985. He submitted that the complainant also stated before us that by the time he obtained certified copy of the order of the learned District Judge and reached the Court of learned A.C.M. he found that the latter was not present on his seat and reported to have gone somewhere out in connection with his administrative duties. Mr. Ramchand Rangwani further submitted that the Magistrate had submitted a report to the District Judge accordingly and it was pursuant to that that the transfer application was dismissed as having become infructuous. Mr. Ramchand Rangwani further stated that the impugned order was passed at 11‑00 a.m. whereas the order of stay was passed by the learned District Judge at about 12‑30 p.m. He also submitted without being controverted by the complainant that he (complainant) had not intimated the learned Magistrate about his intention to move the said application. Our specific enquiry, the complainant admitted this fact to be correct. In this view of the matter, we do not find any force in the contention of the complainant and repel it at accordingly.

17. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. He submitted that the evidence of all the witnesses on the fact that the complainant was also beaten by Danda is belied by the doctor's evidence. The complainant/injured P.W.1. had deposed that he had received an injury on head by the bottle and so also an injury in the stomach and left arm yet the medical evidence does not lend support to this allegation. There was no Danda injury, as per medical evidence, on the body of the complainant. He emphasised that the injured had thus falsely implicated both the accused.

18. Before proceeding to consider the merits of the case, we would first like to refer to the guiding principles laid down for dealing with the acquittal appeals. The basic decision is that of the Privy Council in Scheo Swarup and others v. King Emperor reported in A I R 1934 PC 227 wherein it was held as under:‑

"The powers conferred by the Court and before reaching its conclusions upon facts, the High Court should and will always give proper weight and consideration to such matters as: ‑: .

(1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses;

(2) the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has been acquitted at his trial;

(3) The right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt; and

(4) the slowness of an appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a :fudge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses:"

19. The Federal Court of Pakistan in a case reported in P L D 1951 FC 107, Ahmed v. The Crown, has held:‑

"Before an order of acquittal is reversed, it must be shown that the judgment of the Sessions Judge was unreasonable or manifestly wrong. If two conclusions were equally possible, an order of acquittal should not have been reversed:"

20. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in Abdul Majid v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Government of East Pakistan reported in P L D 1964 SC 422, held as under:‑

"In setting aside an acquittal in a case which rested wholly on direct evidence of witnesses, as much importance must be given as in any other case, to the rule which runs through the criminal jurisprudence of our country as a golden thread that the benefit of every doubt must go to the accused persons. In this case, the Judge of the trial Court had canvassed in his judgment a considerable number of features which went to create doubt regarding the testimony of each of the aforesaid witnesses, a doubt which was ; clearly shared and expressly declared by the assessors. As was remarked by the Judicial Committee in the case of Sheo Swarup and others the fact of the acquittal by the trial Court certainly does not operate to diminish the substantial nature of such doubts or of the benefit to the accused person which must necessarily follow. That is a principle which appears to have escaped the notice of the learned Judges in this case. We must not be thought to say that such a view of the facts or the conclusion therein formed by a trial Judge or even by a jury is binding on a Court of appeal in Pakistan. A verdict by a jury upon proved facts which no reasonable body of men could conceivably reach may be reversed by the High Court on a reference. Equally, a conclusion by a Judge may be reversed, even where it has led to an acquittal. But where he has read the evidence fairly, and has formulated grounds of doubt which are not perverse or wholly illogical or unreasonable, there is a clear risk of departure from the rule of the benefit of the doubt in reversing his findings:'

21. The Supreme Court has also in the case of Gul Nawaz v. The State reported in 1968 S C M R 1168(2), held as under:‑

.It should have been remembered that the appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court must always be given due weight and importance, for, that Court has the advantage of not only hearing the evidence but also observing the demeanour of the witnesses deposing before it. Its judgment of the credibility of a witness is not to be lightly discarded, particularly, where such judgment is supported by cogent and substantial reasons:

22. We have heard the learned counsel for the State as well as for the respondents/accused and have also perused the record and evidence of the witnesses with their assistance and we are firmly of the view that the learned trial Magistrate has for cogent, valid and sound reasons disbelieved the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. In our opinion, the impugned judgment is neither perverse nor unreasonable. Now we proceed to consider the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

(1) P.W. 1 Syed Sharif Hussain, informant, is not a trustful witness. His testimony is full of self‑contradictions. A few of them are these:‑

(i) In the examination‑in‑chief he said that both the accused tried to take away the radiogram without paying the repairing charges of Rs.80 even on his demand. But in cross‑examination he plainly admitted that he hid not asked from P.W. Sultan (the owner of the workshop) as to how much charges were to be received from the owner of the radiogram and who was the owner. A little later he again averred that he had also told the police that he had demanded Rs.80 from the accused at the time when they were taking the radiogram but the accused did not pay and quarrelled with me but the same was also not recorded by the police.

(ii) In cross‑examination he stated that it is correct that Mahmud Ashraf caught him and Wazir Ashraf took up a bottle and hit him. Having admitted that it was correct that F.I.R. did not speak anything about this matter of catching by Mahmud Ashraf and hitting by Wazir Ashraf he said that he had stated but police did not write it.

(2) The P.W. 1 has also tried to make improvements in the case set up by him in the F.I.R. which has rendered his testimony all the more unreliable.

(3) He has given such an exaggerated version that it has become difficult to find out the specific parts allegedly played by the respective respondent. His version in this respect is also self‑contradictory.

(4) His testimony regarding receiving head injury from the unbroken bottle and stomach injury from the broken pieces of the bottle is belied by the medical evidence. So also is the case regarding injuries caused by Danda.

(2) P.W. 2 Mohammad Ehsan is brother of P.W. Sultan. In his examination‑ in‑ chief he has said that outside the workshop the place of occurrence, he was washing a milk bucket when he heard noise from workshop side. When he went there he saw Sharif bleeding from his ear. In cross‑examination he specifically admitted that he was the first man to reach on cries on the spot. He has admitted that the accused's Chowkidar's room to which the accused come, is adjacent to the shop (place of occurrence). He further admitted that the radiogram was kept in the shop locked in cabinet. In cross‑examination he further admitted that he had come to depose for Sultan.

(3) P.W.3, Anis, has been examined as another eye‑witness of the incident. In his examination: in‑chief he deposed that Wazir Ashraf also hit the complainant Sharif with Dandas. This statement is belied by medical evidence which does not disclose any blunt weapon injury on the person of the complainant. In cross‑examination he admitted that when he reached the place of incident he found the gathering of people. It has already come in the evidence of P.W.2 that he was first to reach the place of incidence and that the injured had by then received the ear injury. The statement of P.W.3 thus in fact appears to be false and untrustworthy. Moreover, he has not admitted that he is an employee of P.W. Sultan although P.Ws.1 and 2 both have deposed that Anis is Sultan's servant. No doubt the learned trial Court has wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment that the name of P.W. Anis does not appear in the F.I.R. We have, however, given due consideration to his evidence and do not find him to be a truthful eye‑witness.

(4) P.W.4 Tassawar is a chance witness who has his house about 6 miles away from the place of incidence. He has not claimed to be an eye‑witness in the sense of having seen the accused causing injury to P.W.1 Sharif. In cross‑examination he has admitted that he did not know the accused before the incident and that he saw them at the place of incident and thereafter in the Court. Admittedly no identification parade was held and it also renders his evidence entirely useless for the prosecution.

(5) P.W. 5 Sultan is the owner of Pakistan Electronic Centre, the workshop where the incident took place. He is the employer of P.W.1 Sharif Hussain. His is not an eye‑witness. But in his examination‑in‑chief he stated that having been informed of the incident by P.W. Saleem, he came to his shop and saw the accused going away from the place and injured Sharif had also taken to police station. In cross‑examination he stated that it was incorrect to suggest that the accused had not come to his shop a day before the incident. But it is contradictory to the statement of P.W.1, who stated that two days prior to the incident the accused wanted to take away the radiogram without making payment but same was not agreed by Sultan. He denied the suggestion in cross‑examination that he wonted the accused to vacate the room where their Chowkidar lived. He admitted in cross‑examination that the accused had a shop in the National City Hotel where there are many repair shops adjacent to their shop. He also admitted that his shop is about a mile away from theirs. He also admitted that Regal is near to the shop of the accused where there are many repair shops. He stated that he was informed about the incident by P.W. Saleem whereas it was not so stated by P.W. Saleem. On the contrary, P.W. Mohammad Ahsan has stated that he went to call his brother Sultan.

(6) P.W. 6 Saleem Ahmed is an apprentice at Pakistan Electronic Centre, the place of occurrence. His testimony is to the effect that Wazir Ashraf took out a bottle and put a blow on Sharif Hussain whereupon it was broken. The accused Wazir Ashraf again hit a blow with broken bottle to Sharif with the result that his ear was injured. It is contrary to what P.W. Tassawar Hussain deposed. It is also contradictory to the statement of P.W. Ahsan who deposed that he had seen the bottle in the hand of Mahmood Ashraf. Saleem Ahmed stated that the accused Mahmood Ashraf took out a Danda and put blows of Danda on Sharif. This version is belied by medical evidence inasmuch as there was no blunt weapon injury found on the person of the injured (P.W.1). He stated that the accused person took the radiogram. In cross‑examination he admitted that at the time of commotion Anis was not present on the spot. He also stated that the other persons Ahsan and Tassawar were present at the factory after the incident. He stated that he did not know Anis prior to the incident. This version is contrary to the statement of P.W. Mohammad Ahsan who deposed that Anis is Sultan's servant. Similarly, it is contrary to the statement of P.W. Sharif who admitted in cross‑examination that besides him one Anis Ahmed was also an employee of that shop in which he was working.

(7) P.W. 7 S.I.P. Mohammad Jaffar is the investigating Officer. He recorded the F.I.R. His testimony to the effect that the F.I.R. was read over to the complainant who admitted that its contents were correct is contradicted by the testimony of complainant (P.W.1) who deposed in his cross‑examination that the F.I.R. was not read over to him but he was sent to the hospital. He has stated that accused Mahmood Ashraf voluntarily came at the police station and that he arrested him. No Mashirnama of arrest has, however, been produced. He was then slightly injured and he too was sent to the hospital for medical examination and report. He stated that he received the medico‑legal report of accused Mahmood Ashraf. It is, however, seen that no medical officer who examined him has been produced at the trial. This statement of the witness, therefore, remains unsubstantiated. He in cross‑examination stated that the complainant was injured on his head side, arm side and of his ear side and all were bleeding. This version is again contrary to the medical evidence available on record. Moreover, no Mashirnama of the injuries on the person of the complainant has been produced. He has admitted that only four eye‑witnesses were named in the F.I.R. namely, Mohammad Ahsan, Tassawar, Faiz Ahmed and Anis. The name of P.W.6 Saleem Ahmed does not find place in the F.I.R. although he has been examined by the prosecution as an eye‑witness of the incident. No explanation is forthcoming as to why Faiz Ahmed the alleged eye‑witness named in the F.I.R. was not examined. He admitted that P.W. Mohammad Ahsan had stated in his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. that he went to inform his brother.

(8) P.W. 8 Mohammad Ashraf who is resident of Sanghar is the Mashir of the memo. inspection of the scene. He is nephew of P.W.1 Sharif Hussain. P.W. Allah Bachayo Memon in his cross‑examination admitted that such injury i.e. No. 1, could be sustained by a fall on sharp‑edged weapon.

23. We have thoroughly looked into the prosecution evidence available on record and we have reached the conclusion that the impugned judgment of the learned Additional City Magistrate, Court No. IV, is neither unreasonable nor manifestly wrong so as to justify our interference. So far as the ocular testimony is concerned we find that the prosecution witnesses are interested and connected inter se. The entire prosecution story revolves round P.W. Sultan inasmuch as the place of occurrence is his shop, the informant/injured and all eye‑witnesses barring Tassawar Hussain are either related to him or are his employees. Even the Mashir of the site inspection is the nephew of the complainant. The testimony of the witnesses, as discussed above, is not confidence inspiring and hence it cannot be acted upon in the absence of corroboration by independent witnesses of the locality. We are not impressed by the argument of Mr. Murtaza Hussain, the learned State counsel that the non‑production of independent witnesses in the instant case was of no importance. We have been able to lay our hands on a Supreme Court decision reported in 1972 S C M R 144 which cuts through his arguments, and wherein it was held as under:‑

"It is the prosecution case that a large number of persons had collected at the place of occurrence and they were kept at bay by the accused persons' firing at them indiscriminately. The failure on the part of the prosecution to produce a single disinterested witness is a point that goes against the prosecution. In the absence, therefore, of any corroboration of the evidence of the said eye‑witnesses. it was not safe to place implicit reliance on their evidence."

24. For the reasons given above we see no substance in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.

25. The respondents are on bail granted by this Court, their bail bonds are hereby cancelled.

M.Y.H./S‑82/K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.