' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1135 of 2005 (Shahzad alias Sahib v. The State) and Criminal Revision No,425-A of 2005 (Liaqat Ali v. Shahzad and others) filed for enhancement of conviction and sentence of the appellants, as they arise out of the same judgment, dated 4-5-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, whereby after having tried the appellants, convicted them under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life each 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' R.I. Each. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellants.
2. Brief facts of the case, as explained by complainant Liaqat Ali in. The F.I.R. Are that he is butcher by profession; that at about 3-30 a.m. (night) of 4/5 November, 2003, he along with his son Arshad Ali and Munir Ahmad son of Bashir Ahmad went to the house of his another son Sakhawat Ali and door of the house was unchained from inside, they heard shrieks from inside the house and saw that Ramzan caught hold of Sakhawat Ali whereas Shahzad alias Sahib and Lal alias Laloo were inflicting Chhuri blows to him; that on seeing them the accused decamped from the spot while brandishing Chhuris and that when they attended to Sakhawat Ali he succumbed to the said injuries at the spot. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. That wife of Sakhawat Ali, namely Bushra Bibi was also present in the house and was standing in a corner. According to the complainant, the accused while fleeing away from the spot left at the spot two pistols of .30 bore which were not used. The motive alleged for the occurrence was that Sakhawat Ali deceased had strained relations with his wife Bushra Bibi, two days prior to the occurrence she and her mother Mst. Bano mixed poison in the meal of Sakhawat Ali to kill him but luckily he came to know about the same and refused to take meal due to which a quarrel took place between them and for that reason all the three accused with their common intention and consultation at the abetment of Mst. Bushra Bibi killed Sakhawat Ali 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 thirteen prosecution witnesses during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal submits that the behaviour of the P.Ws. Was most unnatural at the time of occurrence which had taken place during dark hours of the night; that the P.Ws. Were interested, inimical and chance witnesses, so they are not reliable witnesses; that no recovery has been effected from the appellants; that there is no corroborative evidence against the appellants; that the motive is not proved; that they are innocent; 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, Ch. Jamshed Hussain, Deputy Prosecutor-General Punjab for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, who has also filed Criminal Revision No,425-A of 2005 for enhancement of sentence of the appellants, submits that the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged in which appellants were named with specific roles, that neither the complainant nor the P. Ws. Are inimical towards the appellants to falsely depose against them, the P.Ws. Proved their presence at the spot, light of the bulb has been shown in the site plan, there was no chance of false implication or false identity as both the parties are closely related with each other, there are six injuries with sharp-edged weapon while three with blunt weapon on the person of the deceased; that the ocular account in this case is corroborated by the medical evidence; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt and that this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. I 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. Occurrence in this case had taken place in the night between 4/5-11-2003 at about 3-20 a.m. The matter was reported to the police at Muhammad Ali Park, Street No,1, Near Ganda Nala of Chak No,214/R.B. At about 4-15 a.m., the formal F.I.R. Was recorded at 4-45 a.m. While distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is three kilometers.
8. In all four accused were named in the F.I.R. i.e. Both the present appellants, namely, Shahzad alias Sahib and Fayyaz alias Laloo and two acquitted co-accused, namely, Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Bushra Bibi who was wife of deceased Sakhawat Ali while Ramzan is real brother of both the appellants. Complainant in this case is Liaqat Ali who is father of deceased Sakhawat Ali, P.W.9 Munir Ahmad is son-in-law of the complainant while Arshad is his son-who was given up by the prosecution.
9. P.W.5 Dr. Altaf Pervaiz Qasim conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 5-11-2003 at 9-00 a.m. And according to him the time between the injury and the death was immediate while between death and post-mortem examination six hours.
10. Appellants were arrested on 16-5-2004 by P. W.10 Muhammad Amin Inspector and during that period the police postponed their arrest. No recovery was effected from them.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that there -is no mention in the F.I.R. Qua existence of any light at the place of occurrence. Later on, in order to improve the prosecution story, an electric bulb was shown in the rough site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer and in the site plan prepared by the Draftsman.
12. It would not be out of place to mention here that after the occurrence the accused decamped from the spot while brandishing Chhuris but it is strange enough that the police, on its first visit at the spot (according to recovery memo. Exh.P.K.) found three blood-stained Chhuris from the spot which were taken into possession. Police also recovered two pistols from the spot along with five bullets from one pistol and one empty magazine from the other one.
13. Both the eye-witnesses, who were produced by the prosecution, were not residents of the place of occurrence.
14. Apart from above, the time and month of occurrence is very necessary for a just decision of the case. It was 5th day of November and time was about 3-00 a.m. When the occurrence had taken place. It was a cold season. It is not imaginable that at that time a man of normal prudence would leave the outer door of his house opened, as has been alleged by the P. Ws. Strange enough to note that nobody from the adjacent houses stepped forward to depose about the occurrence.
15. Moreso, appellants left the spot and surprisingly neither the complainant, who was real father of the deceased, nor Arshad (who was given up and real brother of the deceased) nor Muhammad Munir (real brother of the deceased) tried to apprehend or resist the attack. This conduct on the part of the P. Ws who were inter se related to the deceased, was unnatural and creates doubts about the veracity of their depositions against the appellants. So, in my considered view, presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot is highly doubtful, they are termed as planted witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their testimony coupled with the reason that even the police postponed their arrest for about six months which was another factor which goes in favour of the appellants because the police itself was not sure whether it were the appellants who had committed the murder? Furthermore, the matter was also not reported at the police station. It was reported outside the Police Station at Muhammad Ali Park, Street No,1, Near Ganda Nala of Chak No,214/RB which is indicative of the fact that it was full of consultations and concoctions.
16. I may also mention here that no recovery was effected from the appellants during the course of investigation conducted by the police. Appellants were two in number but three Chhuris were recovered from , the spot. Motive behind the occurrence was that the relations between the deceased and his wife were strained one. The only allegation against deceased's wife, namely, Bushra Bibi, was that she was standing near here husband at the time of occurrence. She was tried and acquitted from the case. She filed a complaint but the same was dismissed and her Criminal Revision No,635 of 2005 met the same fate by this Court on 7-3-2006. Criminal Appeal No,824 of 2005 filed against the acquittal of Muhammad Ramzan and Bushra Bibi was dismissed on 21-9- 2005 by a learned Division Bench of this Court (headed by me).
17. The motive behind the present occurrence, as stated by the complainant in the F.I.R., was that the relations between the deceased Sakhawat Ali and his wife Bushra Bibi were strained, two days prior to the occurrence she and her mother tried to mix poison in his meal but he did not take the said food. Although an effort was made to kill him about which effort even deceased Sakhawat Ali came to know. If this was the position then the deceased should not have kept Bushra Bibi in his house for a moment, so the motive is not believed by this Court being against the normal human conduct.
18. 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. For reasons given above, Criminal Revision No,425-A of 2005 filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence of the appellants has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.