' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J Ghulam Abbas, Ashfaq, Sakhawat, Rafaqat Ali and Ilyas appellants were convicted for an offence under sections 302(b)/149, P.P.C. Vide judgment, dated 29-3-2002 rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad and were sentenced to imprisonment for life each and to pay a sum of Rs,50,000 each to the heirs of Ghulam Mustafa deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. The appellants were also convicted for an offence under section 148, P.P.C. And were sentenced to rigorous' imprisonment for three years each and a fine of Rs,5000 each or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The appellants were further convicted for an offence under sections 201/149, P.P.C. And were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and a fine of Rs,25,000 each or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. All the sentences of imprisonment passed against the appellants were ordered by the learned trial Court to run concurrently and the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellants. The appellants have challenged their convictions and sentences before this Court through the present appeal.
2. The allegation against the appellants is that at an unspecified time on 12-10-1999 they had committed the murder of Ghulam Mustafa deceased in Chak No,49/JB within the area of Police Station Dijkot, District Faisalabad. F.I.R. No,300 was lodged in respect of the said murder by Liaqat Ali complainant (P.W.6), the father of Ghulam Mustafa deceased, on 17-10-1999 at Police Station Dijkot, District Faisalabad for offences under sections 148/302/149/201, P.P.C. The investigation of this case was conducted by Habib Ullah, S.-I. (P.W.9) and after completion of the investigation a challan was submitted before the learned trial Court. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge framed by the learned trial Court against them and claimed a trial. During the trial the prosecution produced nine witnesses in support of its case against the appellants. In their statements recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellants denied and controverted all the allegations of fact levelled against them by the prosecution and professed their innocence. They, however, opted not to make statements on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And also did not produce any witness in their defence. At the conclusion of the trial the learned trial Court found the prosecution's case against the appellants to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, the appellants were convicted and sentenced by it as mentioned and detailed above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the case in hand is one of no evidence at all and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. As against that the learned counsel for the State has maintained that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and, thus, their convictions and sentences recorded by the learned trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of this case with their assistance it has straightaway been observed by the me that admittedly the alleged murder of Ghulam Mustafa deceased had remained unwitnessed and the F.I.R. In respect of the same had been lodged with a delay of five days. In order to prove its case against the appellants the prosecution had relied upon the evidence pertaining to an extra-judicial confession, recoveries and the medical evidence.
5. According to the F.I.R. Lodged by Liaqat Ali complainant (P.W.6) the extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the appellants was a joint confession. As a joint confession is inadmissible in evidence, therefore, it had been maintained by Muhammad Ishaque (P.W.5) and Liaqat Ali complainant (P.W.6) before the learned trial Court that the alleged confession had been made only by Ghulam Abbas appellant. The alleged confession made by Ghulam Abbas appellant before these witnesses was deficient in the relevant details and it had never been specified therein as to which appellant had played what role in the alleged murder of Ghulam Mustafa deceased. Liaquat Ali complainant (P.W.6) had maintained in the F.I.R. That extra-judicial confession had allegedly been made by all the appellants jointly but before the learned trial Court he had contradicted himself by maintaining that the alleged confession had been made by Ghulam Abbas appellant only. Muhammad Ishaque (P.W.5) did not remember as to whether he had made any statement before the Investigating. Officer under section 161, Cr.P.C. And he had not been able to controvert that in his statement actually made before the police he had maintained that the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellants was a joint confession. An extra-judicial confession is even otherwise a weak type of evidence which ordinarily does not suffice by itself to establish guilt of an accused person. In the case in hand the above mentioned contradictions between the stands taken by D Liaqat Ali complainant (P.W.6) and Muhammad Ishaque (P.W.5) had rendered this piece of evidence even weaker.
6. The articles allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellants during the investigation of this case were not stained with blood and, thus, they never stood connected with .The alleged offences. The prosecution wanted the Court to believe that some articles belonging to the deceased had been recovered from the appellants possession during the investigation of this case but no witness had ever identified such articles to be those of the deceased. None of the prosecution witnesses had mentioned any distinguishing feature of any such article so as to connect the same with the deceased. In such state of the evidence the recoveries allegedly effected in this case were legally inconsequential.
7. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution in this case had failed to provide any support to the prosecution's case against the appellants as the murder itself had remained unwitnessed and, thus, the medical evidence could not point an accusing finger towards any culprit. Even otherwise Dr. Liaqat (P.W.1) had maintained before the learned trial Court that the dead-body subjected to postmortem examination by him was unidentifiable. It had, thus, never been conclusively established that the dead-body found in this case was that of Ghulam Mustafa deceased and of none else or that the death of Ghulam Mustafa deceased was actually homicidal.
8. No other piece of evidence was produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court connecting the appellants with the alleged offences. The pieces of evidence actually produced by the prosecution before the learned trial Court have already been found by me to be unworthy of reliance and incapable of proving the prosecution's case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the convictions and sentences of the appellants recorded by the learned trial Court are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the G charge. They shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required in any other case. Ilyas appellant has already been admitted to bail by this Court during the pendency of this appeal. His bail bond and sureties shall stand discharged.