' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH MAHMUD, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-1- 2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan (in case F.I.R. No,644 of 1998) registered at Police Station Kot Chhutta) whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. To death plus payment of rupees one lac, as compensation, to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default whereof to undergo imprisonment for six months. Murder Reference No,128 of 2002, seeking confirmation or otherwise of death sentence, has also been placed before us. We propose to decide both these matters through this single judgment.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case for F.I.R. (Exh.P.B./2) are that Mst. Sakina Mai daughter of Manzoor Hussain, the grand daughter of the complainant Hafiz Ata Muhammad, was married with Ghulam Farid, nephew of the complainant, and out of this wedlock two children were born. Two months prior to the registration of case, Mst. Bacho Mai wife of Abdullah/nephew of complainant had committed suicide by taking poisonous medicine. After her death, Abdullah-appellant levelled accusation that Ghulam Farid had illicit intimacy with Mst. Bacho Mai and when their intimacy came to the knowledge of the public, Mst. Bacho Mai committed suicide, so Ghulam Farid was KALA/culprit. Ghulam Farid was terrified. He left his wife in his house and went to Karachi. The complainant gave refuge to Mst. Sakina in his house, as she was his grand daughter. On the fateful day at about 9-00 a.m., Mst. Sakina along with her mother Mst. Ruqayya went to the complainant's field to pick up cotton. The complainant P.W.9 and Muhammad Iqbal (given up P.W.) were sitting on the eastern side of the house of Muhammad Iqbal. On hearing alarm emanating from the field of the complainant, the complainant and Muhammad Iqbal rushed towards that direction and saw that Muhammad Abdullah-appellant was giving Chhuri blows to Mst. Sakina. On the Lalkara raised by the complainant and Muhammad Iqbal, Abdullah left Mst. Sakina and ran away towards the west, along with Chhurri. The complainant, Mst. Ruqayya and Muhammad Iqbal attended Mst.
Sakina, who, being smeared in blood, was lying on the ground and was having wounds on the left side of her back. She was taken to the hospital at Jampur, where she was given first aid and was then referred to DHQ Hospital, DG Khan. They were on their way to DG Khan, when they came across police party and the complainant got recorded his statement to the Sub-Inspector on 22-11-1998 at 12-30 p.m. The Sub-Inspector also prepared her injury statement.
3. On 23-11-1998, Ghulam Rasool S.-I. P.W.11, went to the spot and prepared rough sketch of the place of occurrence Exh.P.F. On spot inspection, he took into possession pair of Softi Shoes P-2/1-2, Dopatta P-3 and a cloth with picked up cotton P-4 through memo. Exh.P.G., attested by Abdul Ghaffar P.W.10 and one Mumtaz Ahmad (given up P.W.). He also took into possession blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo. Exh.P.H., attested by the same witnesses. On the same date, the statement of injured Mst. Sakina was recorded. On 24-11-1998, on receipt of information that Mst.
Sakina had died, he went to the hospital, prepared inquest report Exh.PD/2 of the deceased and got post-mortem examination on her dead body. On 27-11-1998, he took into possession the washed clothes of the deceased, i.e,, Shalwar P.5 and Shirt P.6, from the complainant, through memo.
Exh.P.J., attested by Abdul Ghaffar P.W. And one Mumtaz Ahmad, who was not produced at the trial.
On the same date, he took into possession another Shirt and Shalwar of the deceased, which had also been washed, from Ata Muhammad, through memo. Exh.P.K., attested by Abdul Ghaffar P.W.10 and one Nazar Hussain (given up P.W.). On 31-8-2000, the appellant was arrested. On 3-9-2000, the appellant, while in custody, led to the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri P.1, which was taken into possasion vide memo. Exh.P.E., attested by Manzoor Hussain P.W.8 and one Nazar Hussain (given up P.W.). After completion of investigation, the appellant was challaned to face the trial.
4. Prosecution produced eleven witnesses in support of its case.Hafiz Ata Muhammad appeared as P.W.9 and furnished the ocular account. He also stated about the motive. During his statement, he made various improvement relating to occurrence as well as to motive. The rest of the eye- witnesses mentioned in the F.I.R., i.e, Mst. Ruqayya mother of the deceased, and Muhammad Iqbal cousin of the deceased, did not appear before the trial Court. However, Abdul Ghaffar, who was introduced as witness in supplementary statement of the complainant, appeared as P.W.1 and stated about the occurrence and recoveries effected from the spot and of washed clothes of Mst.
Sakina which were produced before the Investigating Officer on 27-11-1998, five days after registration of the case and three days after the death of Mst. Sakina. Dr. Sajida Mahboob P.W.6 stated that she examined Mst. Sakina Bibi, while she was alive, on 22-11-998 at 6-00 p.m. She observed a stab wound 2-1/2 cm x 1-1/2 cm about 5" below the outer aspect of left side of chest.
She further stated that the injury was caused by sharp-edged weapon and that the patient informed her that she was not previously examined by any doctor. During cross-examination, she stated that she did not hand over the clothes of Mst. Sakina to the police. She admitted that she did not mention the probable duration of time lapsed between injury and post-mortem examination.
Dr. Musarat Mumtaz P.W.7 stated that she conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Sakina on 24-11-1998. According to her, injury No,1, which was Caused by a sharp-edged weapon, proved fatal and Mst. Sakina lost her life within 26 to 48 hours of receipt of injuries. She was re-examined with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and diagram of the injury Exh.P.D./3 was brought on the record of the case. The diagram shows that the injury was caused on the back of chest, i.e,, scapular region. Manzoor Hussain father of the deceased appeared as P.W.8 and stated about the identification of the dead body. He also stated about the recovery of the blood-stained Chhurri P.1 from the Dera of the appellant. In addition to that, he stated that accused absconded after the occurrence. P.W.11 Ghulam Rasool S.-I. Stated about the record of complaint Exh.P.B. At the instance of the first informant at 12-30 noon on 22-11-1998 within the vicinity of Kot Chhutta. He also stated about the investigation of the case. The rest of the witnesses are formal in nature and need not be discussed.
5. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant pleaded innocence and stated that he was involved in this case due to existing hostility over the death of his wife Mst.'Bacho Mai, who was cousin of Mst. Sakina Mai. The appellant did not appear as a witness in his defence and closed his case after placing on record the statement of Ata Muhammad, Manzoor Hussain, Nazar Hussain and Khuda Bakhsh as Exh.D.A., DB, DC and DD respectively, which were recorded by the District Magistrate during the proceedings for disinterment of the dead body of Mst, Bacho Mai.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it was an unwitnessed occurrence; that Hafiz Ata Muhammad had made dishonest improvements in his statement recorded at the trial; that his statement was belied by the medical evidence and was not supported by any evidence worthy of credence. He has summed up his arguments by submitting that the prosecution case was replete with doubts.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has argued that it was a daylight occurrence; that the matter was reported to the police on the same day; that ocular account was fully supported by the medial evidence and corroborated by the fact of recovery of blood-stained Chhuri at the instance of the appellant; and that prosecution has successfully proved the motive against the appellant. He has supported the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record of the case, including the judgment.
9. The learned trial Court has correctly excluded the statement of Abdul Ghaffar from consideration as his name did not figure as a witness A in the F.I.R. And he was introduced as an eye-witness subsequently. Now we are left with the statement of Hafiz Ata Muhammad, first informant, medical evidence and evidence of recovery of blood-stained Chhurri at the instance of the appellant. Hafiz Ata Muhammad P.W.9 is the sole witness in this case. It is true that conviction can be recorded on the basis of confidence-inspiring testimony of a single witness and it is B quality of the evidence which is relevant and not the quantity but the acid test for reliance is that it should come from an unimpeachable source. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about Hafiz Ata Muhammad, who had made many dishonest improvements in his statement. According to F.I.R., the occurrence took place at 9-00 a.m. Within the view of the complainant, Mst. Ruqayya Bibi, mother of the deceased, and Muhammad Iqbal. Mst. Ruqayya Bibi, who being mother of the deceased, was allegedly present with the deceased at the time of occurrence, never appeared before the trial Court nor did Muhammad Iqbal. The matter was reported to Ghulam Rasool, S.-I./P.W.11, not at police station but within the vicinity of Kot Chhutta, at 12-30 p.m., while Mst. Sakina was being taken to DHQ Hospital, DG Khan, as stated in the F.I.R. According to Hafiz Ata Muhammad, delay, was caused because Mst.
Sakina was immediately taken to hospital situated in Jampur, where the doctor attended and after giving first aid advised the complainant to take the deceased to DHQ Hospital, DG Khan. This explanation is not ony, not supported by any evidence but is also belied by the available facts. Dr. Sajida Mahboob P.W.6, who had examined the deceased on 22-11-1998 at 6-00 p.m., stated that Mst. Sakina deceased informed her that she was not previously examined by any doctor. No document is available on record revealing that Mst. Sakina was examined by the doctor posted at Jampur, nor any doctor from Jampur was produced to prove that, in fact, Mst. Sakina was firstly taken to Jampur Hospital. In F.I.R. It was not mentioned at all as to how Mst. Sakian was transported to Jampur Hospital. During trial complainant stated in his examination-in-chief that Mst. Sakina was taken to Jampur Hospital on a motor cycle which was being driven by his son Nazar Hussain.
Nazar Hussian was never produced. However, during cross-examination, he stated that motor cycle which was used for the transporting of Mst. Sakina to Jampur Hospital, belonged to some unknown passerby. He went on to say that motor cycle was handed over to some one at Jampur but he did not know to whom. It is hard to believe that motor cycle owner would so easily part with his valuable property. As per record, Mst. Sakina received injury at 9-00 a.m. She was attended to by Dr Sajida Mahboob at 6-00 p.m.After the nine hours of the occurrence. At the time of examination, Mst. Sakina was not wearing blood-stained clothes and for that reason, her clothes were not handed over to the police. It appears that no one was present at the time of occurrence and the poor girl continued bleeding for considerable time before any medical aid or first aid could be given to her. As a passing reference, it may be mentioned here that Investigating Officer prepared memos. Exhs.PJ and PK on 27-11-1998, i.e, five days after registration of the case, whereby the clothes worn by Mst. Sakina at the time of occurrence, which had been washed, were handed over to the police. It reflects on the working of our police and their lack of training and incompetency.
10.- Medical evidence also does not support the version given in F.I.R., wherein it was stated that after hearing alarm, complainant along with Muhammad Iqbal ran towards the spot and saw the appellant causing injuries with Chhuri to the deceased. It was further stated that when the witnesses attended to Mst. Sakina. She was lying in a pool of blood and had received injuries on the left of her back, while according to medical evidence there was only one injury on the scapula of the deceased.
11. The appellant was arrested on 31-8-1999, after more than nine months of the occurrence.
Thereafter on 3-9-1999, he led to the recovery of blood-stained Chhurri P.1 from his Dera. It is hard to believe that any accused with his head on his shoulders, would keep incriminating weapon intact so as to produce it before the Investigating Officer as a souvenir after his arrest. This piece of evidence is the result of padding done by the Investigating Officer. It is also not believable that blood, which is an organic matter, would not disintegrate during such a long period. On this regard judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Muhammad Ilyas and 5 others v. The State published at page No,443 in PLD 1967 Supreme Court may be referred to. To cut the things short, no reliance could be placed on recovery evidence.
12. As far as motive is concerned, according to F.I.R., the appellant suspected that his brother Ghulam Farid, husband of the deceased, had illicit relationship with Mst. Bacho Mai, wife of the appellant, who committed suicide, apprehending danger to his life at the hands of the appellant, Ghulam Farid left his family and went to Karachi. The fact remains that the appellant had no motive whatsoever to take the life of Mst. Sakina who had played no role in intimacy of her husband and Mst. Bacho, wife of the appellant. On the other hand, it is available on record that the complainant party was annoyed with the appellant and had been moving repeated applications against him before the different forums.
13. The learned trial Court has dubbed the appellant absconder in the judgment, perhaps, on the basis of the statement of Manzoor Hussain, father of the deceased, who stated that the appellant absconded after the occurrence. We are afraid that mere statement of Manzoor Hussain P.W. Was not enough to dub the appellant absconder, as there is nothing on record that the appellant was declared proclaimed offender after due process of law.
14. As a sequel to above, we hold that the case of the prosecution is not free from doubt. Thus, extending benefit of doubt to the appellant, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the learned trial Court and acquit the appellant of all the charges. He would be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Death sentence is not confirmed. The murder reference is answered in the negative.