' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 16-5-2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum, whereby, after having tried the appellants (in the case registered vide F.I.R. No,18, dated 15-1-1998 under section 302/34, P.P.C., Police Station Dina, District Jhelum for the murder of Muhammad Hussain alias Bahadur Khan deceased), convicted them under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to death each as Ta'zir with a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs,50,000 each as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default whereof to further undergo six months S.I. Each.
2. Brief facts of the case, as explained by complainant Shabbir Hussain (P.W.8) are that he was running a shop of iron and cement near Al-Karam Hospital at Mangla Road, Dina, and had a Haveli in Mohallah Azad Shah Dina wherein two rooms were constructed; that prior to the occurrence, about 10/15 days, he along with his deceased father and maternal-uncle (Mamoon) Ashiq were sitting on the shop and at that time, Wajid Ali and Arshad Khan accused along with Muhammad Naeem P.W. Came there; that Muhammad Naeem asked his father to rent out the house to both the accused at the rate of Rs,500 per month; that accordingly, the key of the house was given to them by his father on the following day; that two/three days prior to the occurrence, the accused, disputed with his father regarding the payment of rent; that on 15-1-1998 at about 10-30/11-00 a.m.
Arshad Khan visited the shop where his father and Ashiq were also present with him and asked that a contractor had come to the house for the removal of the purchased trees of Keeker; that his father asked him to go to the house and he will follow him whereupon he went to the hospital Al- Karam where his son was admitted for the treatment; that his younger brother Naseer P.W.
Accompanied the father to the house and returned to the. Shop after dropping him to the Haveli; that on his inquiry, he informed that he had dropped the father on the gate of Haveli; that at about 4-30/5-00 p.m. In the evening they closed the shop and went to the house; that they did not find the father in the house; that he along with Naseer brother made a search for the father and went to the Haveli at about 5-30/6-00 p.m. And found the Haveli as locked, therefore, they returned from the said Haveli and made a further search for the father; that thereafter they again went to the Haveli and Naseer scaled over the wall and found their father dead on a cot tied with a rope; that Naseer was left with the dead body and that thereafter they informed the police at Dina Chowk to Habibullah S.-I., who recorded his statement as Exh.P.A. The motive stated in the F.I.R. Was that the accused had a dispute over payment of rent with their deceased father, hence they had committed the murder of the deceased.
3. After having completed legal formalities, challan was submitted against the accused before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction, accused denied the charge and claimed trial, where, the prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced ten prosecution witnesses during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that there is no eye-witness in this case; that there is no evidence of extra-judicial confession; that nothing incriminating was recovered on the pointation of the appellants; that as far as recovery of Chaddar is concerned, on which allegedly name of appellant Arshad was written, was never mentioned in the F.I.R. Nor produced before the learned trial Court; that the motive has also not been proved in the instant case; that in fact it is an unwitnessed occurrence; that the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on surmises and conjectures; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants and that the appellants are entitled to acquittal by this Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State, to be very fair to him, submits that actually there is no evidence of the worth which could lead to the guilt of the appellants; further submits that there are some pieces of evidence i,e, statement of P.W.8 shows that one accused Arshad, not named in the F.I.R., had gone to shop to inform the deceased about cutting of trees, P.W.9 stated that he had taken the deceased to the Haveli on the motorcycle where the accused were standing outside the house; that P.W.3 Muhammad Bashir is a recovery witness of the Chaddar from the place of occurrence on which the name of Arshad appellant was allegedly written.
' At this stage, learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Aftab Ahmad Gujjar, Advocate, has entered appearance to contend that there is sufficient evidence on record which connects the appellants with the commission of the offence i,e, murder of the deceased; that the appellants are named by the prosecution witnesses in the case; that the deceased was done to death in the brutal and callous manner; that the appellants remained fugitive from law and that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond a shadow of doubt.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The occurrence in this case had taken place on 15-1-1998 at 11-30 a.m., the matter was reported to the police on the same day at 8-30 p.m. At Dina Chowk to Habibullah Khan S.-I. While formal F.I.R.
A was recorded at 9-00 p.m. In the police station and the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is one and a half kilometers.
' As per prosecution case, on the fateful day and time, when the complainant, his deceased father and Mamoon Ashiq Ali were present at their shop, the deceased was taken on a motorcycle by his son Naseer Hussain and was dropped outside their Haveli where the accused/ appellants were standing, when till evening their father did not reach home, they started searching their father, found the Haveli locked from outside and when they entered the Haveli after scaling over the wall, they found the dead body of their deceased father inside the Haveli. We find that it is an unseen occurrence. There is no eye-witness of the case in this case. Even there is no extra-judicial confession in this case. Moreso, nothing incriminating was recovered from the appellants to connect them with the alleged commission of the offence. It is repellent to common sense that their father had given their house on rent to the appellants but his sons i,e, complainant and his brother Naseer were surprisingly not aware even about the names of those persons which factor leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution have stepped forward with a concocted and self-fabricated story. If appellants were the murderers of their father and the prosecution witnesses were sure about their guilt, then nothing was there to prevent them from naming them in the F.I.R. Even otherwise, the motive alleged behind the occurrence, was that their father had some rent dispute about the rented house with the appellants. The same is not tenable for the reasons that according to prosecution's own case, the appellants had taken the house on rent only 10/15 days prior to the occurrence, so, no question regarding rent dispute arises within such a short span of time, when, ordinarily, the property is given on rent after getting advance rent at least for one month.
' An abortive attempt was made to connect Arshad appellant with the commission of the offence by saying that he had come to the shop and told him regarding arrival of some "Thekedar". So much so, if the deceased did not accompany the said appellant then it does not lie in the mouth of the prosecution that it were the appellants Who committed the murder of the deceased. Law requires standard of witnesses which is very lacking in the present case. It is a murder case and in the absence of strong evidence corroborated by other unimpeachable piece of evidence, people cannot be hanged in the manner as has happened in the present case.
' The prosecution has, next, placed reliance on the recovery of "Chaddar' allegedly belonged to Arshad appellant which, according to our view, is the only piece of evidence which could be considered regarding innocence or guilt of the accused. We note that there is no mention of the said "Chaddar" in the F.I.R. If there was a "Chaddar" along with the deceased and especially upon which name of Arshad appellant had written, then the said article must have been produced before the police and there must have been mentioned of the same in the F.I.R.
8. After having sifted grain from the chaff and after having applied independent judicial mind, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt to sustain conviction. The prosecution case is full of doubts and on the basis of such a shaky evidence the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants cannot be maintained because the same has not come through unimpeachable sources, is untrustworthy, unreliable and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside, the appellants are acquitted from the case and shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Murder Reference is answered in the Negative. Death sentenced is not confirmed.