' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,162 of 2003 and Crl. Revision No,11 of 2004, directed against the judgment dated 31-1-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, whereby he convicted Muhammad Hussain appellant under section 302-B/34, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs,50,000 or in default six months' S.I. He also convicted Muhammad Iqbal, appellant under section 308(2), P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo 14 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,50,000 or in default thereof six months' S.I.
2. Brief facts of the instant case as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Are that the complainant along with his sons Noor Ahmad and Ahmad Ali came to see his daughter Mst.
Zubaida Bibi at Doula Chakir Ka whereupon Zubaida Bibi told him that Muhammad Iqbal has not stopped to tease and beating her. Thereupon they wanted to take her along with them.
Muhammad Iqbal, his brother Muhammad Hussain and their father were not ready to allow her to go with them. Meanwhile, they were talking into their Baithak. Mst. . Zubaida Bibi again said that she will not live with him at any cost because they would kill her. At this Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Hussain asked them that some time be given to them for compromise on which they took her into a room and there, on her shriek the complainant along with his sons came to her room at about 2-00 p.m. On the day of occurrence where they saw Mst. Zubaida Bibi lying on a cot and Muhammad Hussain had caught hold her both arms while Muhammad Iqbal gave repeated three Chhuri blows on her left thigh and then gave a Chhuri blow on her neck. Mst. Zubaida Bibi succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The accused fled away from the spot.
3. After getting information the local police completed all the necessary formalities and thereafter investigation of the case was entrusted to Ghulam Jillani, S.-I. Who along with his subordinates proceeded to the spot where he prepared injury statement Exh.P.G., inquest report Exh.P.H., He also took into possession the blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.C. He arrested Muhammad Iqbal on 7-1-2002 who on 16-1-2002 got recovered blood stained Chhurri P.8 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.L. The arrest of Muhammad Hussain accused was not made as he was found innocent during investigation. Ultimately challan was completed and submitted for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 10 witnesses including Doctor, Investigating Officer, eye-witnesses and other formal and relevant witnesses. After tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner regarding Chhurri Exh.P.N. And that of Serologist Exh.P.O., report of Chemical Examiner with regard to blood-stained earth Exh. P.P and of Serologist, Exh.P.Q. Along with report of Chemical Examiner regarding Chhadar and Gadda Exh.P.R. And Serologist Exh.P.S., closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded their innocence. Learned trial Court after taking into consideration the every aspect of the case and hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal submits that it was an unseen occurrence, both the witnesses are residents of Faisalabad while the occurrence had taken place in District Okara and there is a conflict between ocular account and medical evidence, that time of post-mortem examination also does not fit in with the prosecution time of occurrence given in the F.I.R. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submits that Muhammad Hussain appellant was also declared innocent and the appellants are entitled to acquittal.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that as far as Muhammad Hussain is concerned, he was rightly found innocent during the investigation. As far as Muhammad Iqbal appellant is concerned, he supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record available on the file. The occurrence in this case had taken place in village Doula Chakir Ka situated in Police Station, Chuckak District Okara. The complainant and the other witnesses are residents of Faisalabad. According to the prosecution case Muhammad Hussain had held the deceased while Muhammad Iqbal gave three Chhurri blows on the thigh of the deceased lady and then cut her throat. Lady Doctor Nasreen Aslam who conducted the post-mortem examination has stated while appearing in trial Court as P.W.8 that there is no injury on the thigh of the deceased. There are two injuries caused with sharp edged weapon on chest and one with blunt weapon. The occurrence had taken place on 19-12-2001 at 2-00 p.m., matter was reported to the police on the same day at 4-30 p.m. Postmortem was conducted on 20-12-2001 at 9-30 a.m. Doctor had given the duration between post-mortem and death as 36 to 48 hours which does not fit in with the prosecution time of occurrence. If we believe the prosecution case that the occurrence had taken place at 2-00 p.m.
On 19-12-2001 and the post-mortem was conducted on 20-12-2001 at 9-30 a.m. Then duration between death and post-mortem examination would be 19 to 20 hours so there is lot of differences between 20 hours and 36 to 48 hours. Muhammad Hussain appellant was also found innocent during the course of investigation. The complainant has also improved the motive before the learned trial Court. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the eye-witnesses were not present at the spot. In fact after the murder of the deceased they were called from Faisalabad, then the case was registered so while granting benefit of doubt I accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court. Muhammad Hussain appellant is on bail. He shall be discharged from his bail bonds. Muhammad Iqbal appellant is behind the bars, he is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. The Crl. Revision is dismissed.