Appellants Mst Khurshid Bibi alias Rashidan Bibi and Shafqat Tahira alongwith Sajawal Khan were tried in case F.I.R. No, 167 dated 28.8.1997 under Section 302/34 P.P.C., registered with Police Station Ghaziabad, District Sahiwal, for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Mst. Tameezan Bibi. Vide judgment dated 1.12.1998 passed by Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, the appellants were convicted under Section 302(b)/34 P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment with compensation of Rs, 100,000/-(Rupees one lac) each under Section 544-A Cr.P.C. to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default thereof to further undergo R.I. for two years each. Benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellants.
2. The appellant Mst Khurshid Bibi through Cr1. Appeal No, 123/99 and Mst. Shafqat Tahira through Cr1. Appeal No, 443/98, have approached this Court to call in question their conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court. On the other hand Muhammad Sarfraz complainant preferred Crl. Rev. No, 24/99 against the appellants' conviction seeking enhancement of their sentence. All these matters are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
Sajawal Khan son of Dur-e-Aman was also convicted and sentenced, but before the hearing of his appeal Cr1. Appeal No, 439/98, he was released from jail after having served out his punishment.
Therefore, his appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Precisely the facts of this case, narrated by Muhammad Sarfraz (complainant), in his statement Exh. PA (on the basis of which formal FIR Exh. PA/1 was registered), are that he was employed in garments factory Faisalabad. On the day of occurrence at about 4.00 p.m. he came to his house at Chak No, 169/9-L, to see his mother. When he reached there, he met Amjad Khan son of Mushtaq Ahmad and Muhammad Azam son of Ali Ahmad residents of the village who also accompanied him towards his house while chatting. When he reached his house alongwith said PWs, he saw door of his house open. When they entered the room of house, they saw appellants catching hold of his mother Mst. Tameezan Bibi from her legs while Sajawal Khan son of Dur-e-Aman co-accused armed with data gave four successive blows on head right side of face and right side of shoulder of his mother. When they raised lalkara, Sajawal Khan threatened them of dire consequences. On his alarm some villagers also came to the spot who tried to catch hold of Sajawal Khan, but all the three accused alongwith weapons succeeded in fleeing away towards river. His mother expired there and then. Motive for the occurrence was that Mst. Tahira wife of his brother was living with parents being unhapply with complainant's mother and for this reason Mst. Shafqat Tahira and Sajawal Khan, committed the murder of his mother.
4. Sarfarz (PW-1) reported the matter to Fayyaz Ahmad SI (PW-8) on 28.8.97 when he was at Adda Ghaziabad at 6.30 p.m. through written complaint (Exh. PA) which he sent to the police station for registration of case. There after he visited the place of occurrence where he carried out necessary proceedings and dispatched the dead-body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. The autopsy was conducted by PW-4 Lady Dr. Shazia Zubair vide post-mortem report (Exh. PF).
Following injuries were found on the dead-body:--
(i) Incise wound 12 x 1 cm on the right side of face, extending from lateral angle of right eye to right pinna.
(ii) Incised wound 9 x 1(2/1) cm on right side of head, extending upto right pinna and joining the Injury No, 1 in front.
(iii) Incised wound 12 x 1 cm on right side of head, 4 cm from right pinna.
(iv) Incised wound 11 x 1 cm on right side of head, just above Injury No, 3 and joining the Injury No, 3, on front.
(v) Incised wound 6 x 2 cm on the top of right shoulder into muscle deep.
In post-mortem report, PW-4 opined that cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to injuries to the vital organs, i,e, brain, under Injuries No, 2, 3 and 4 which were collectively and individually fatal and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Probable time between injury and death was immediate while between death and postmortem was within two four hours. Death was caused with sharp-edged weapon.
The appellants were arrested on 29.8.97 while Sajawal Khan accused was arrested on 1.9.97. On 4.9.97 Sajawal Khan got recovered datar bugda numa P-6 which was taken into possession give recovery memo (Exh. PE). The parcel of datar was accordingly sent to the Chemical Examiner and as per reports of Chemical Examiner (Exh. PM) and Serologist (Exh. PN), it was found stained with human blood. After due investigation accused were challaned to face the trial.
4-A. Learned trial Court framed formal charge against the accused on 13.4.98 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed their trial. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as nine PWs and tendered the reports of chemical Examiner and Serologist pertaihing to blood- stained earth and blood-stained datar. PW-1 Muhammad Sarfraz narrated the contents of the FIR, PW-2 Muhammad Azam corroborated the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 Muhammad Iqbal identified the dead-body at the time of post-mortem examination. After the post-mortem examination last worn clothes and other articles were taken into possession vide memo (Exh. PD). He is also witness of recovery from Sajawal Khan. PW-4 conduced the post-mortem examination. PW-5 Muhammad Saeed Akhtar Draftsman prepared site-plans (Exh. PI, PI/1 and PI/2) and handed over the same to the IO. PW6 Shaukat Ali was handed over the scaled parcels containing bloodstained earth and bugda by Manzoor Ahmad MHC for onward transmission to the Chemical Examiner. PW-7 Manzoor Ahmad was handed over written complaint (Exh. PA) by Shaukat Ali Constable on the basis of which he recorded the formal FIR. PW-8 Fayyaz Ahmad SI investigation the case, and after completion of investigation challaned the accused. PW-9 Muhammad Arshad received dead- body of Mst. Tameeza Bibi deceased for post-mortem and he took the same to mortuary.
5. After the recording of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 342 Cr.P.C.
They pleaded their innocence and in response to question why this case against you, Mst. Shafqat Tahira raised the following defence plea: "On 28.8.96 at about 10.00 a.m. one Constable of Police came to my house in Chak No, 169/9-L, and asked me to accompany him to the spot where thanedar of P.S. Ghaziabad is waiting for you. On my arrival there at the spot, thanedar told me that may mother-in-law Mst. Tameeza Bibi has been murdered by some body on the last night. No family member of the deceased is available although all her sons have been informed about the occurrence. If the sons of the deceased will not reach till evening, I will become complainant of this case. I refused to do so and I came back to my house. On the same day at evening Sarfraz, complainant, came to me and asked me to become eye-witness of this case. I refused because I cannot do so without permission of my husband Sohail who is real brother of the complainant and resides at Quetta at this time. He became angry with me and threatened me with dire consequences and went away. On the next day police arrested me in this false case. Azam PW is friend of complainant Sarfraz and also companion in his other criminal cases. I do not know about the other accused persons, therefore there is no question of common intention. I have been falsely involved in this case. I am innocent.
This was a blind murder and Sarfraz son of the deceased was summoned from Faisalabad and was made complainant of this case."
Whereas Mst. Khurshid Bibi alias Rashidan Bibi made the following statement: "My name is not mentioned in the FIR and in the statements of the eye-witnesses u/S. 161 of Cr.P.C. the name of one of the culprits is Mst. Rashidan Bibi. I am not called as Rashidan Bibi. My name is substituted later on the non-availability of Mst. Rashidan Bibi, due to suspicion. I am innocent. I have no relation with the other accused and I have also no motive to murder the deceased."
Both the ladies neither made statement on oath under Section 340(2) Cr.P.C. nor produced any defence evidence.
After conclusion of the trial, appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
6. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for appellant, learned DPG for the State and have gone through the record with their assistance.
7. The prosecution version against the appellants is that at the time of occurrence they were accompanying their co-accused Sajawal Khan and they facilitated the Qatl-e-Amd of Mst.
Tameezan Bibi deceased by catching hold of her legs. In the meantime Muhammad Sarfraz complainant (PW-1) alongwith Muhammad Azam (PW-2) and Muhammad Amjad (GPW) reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Within their view co-accused Sajawal Khan inflicted injuries to the deceased with a datar landing on her head, face and right shoulder. The complainant and his companions challenged the accused, but Sajawal Khan extended them threats of life and alongwith the present appellants fled away towards the river. It has also been deposed by the witnesses that some other persons from the village were also attracted there on hearing the alarm. The above story narrated by the complainant and PW Muhammad Azam is absolutely implausible and does not appeal to the reason that in the presence of so many persons, the accused succeeded to flee away and none of them could be apprehended. There is nothing on record that any person chased the accused and tried to intercept them. It has been admitted, by Muhammad Sarfraz complainant that his other was residing alone in her house and her daughter- in-law namely Mst. Shafqat Tahira appellant was residing in the house of her parents due to some differences with mother-in-law and her husband in those days was employed at Quetta. The complainant has not advanced any motive for the occurrence which prompted the present appellants to participate in the occurrence. It does not inspire confidence that just for some differences with her mother, Mst. Shafqat Tahira joined with her co-accused to take her life.
Similarly Mst. Khurshid Bibi was not nominated by the complainant in the complaint and subsequently she was substituted for Mst. Rashidan Bibi named in the FIR. It may also be pertinent to note that Rana Mukhtar Ahmad son of the deceased has forgiven all the accused during the trial.
In her statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., Mst. Shafqat Tahira has taken the plea that her mother- in-law was done to death by some unknown assailant at night time. On hearing about her death, she went to her house where she was asked by the police to become complainant of the case, but she declined to do so as she had not witnessed the occurrence. Complainant who arrived there on receiving the information of occurrence, also approached her and asked to become complainant but she did not oblige him. Therefore, he falsely implicated her in this case. Mst. Khurshid Bibi has also pleaded her innocence and has stated that she has been falsely substituted for Mst. Rashidan Bibi mentioned in the FIR. After careful analysis of the evidence on record, I have come to the conclusion that it as a case of no evidence against the appellants and they have been falsely involved with mala fide and ulterior motive. The prosecution has failed to establish the charge and bring the guilt home to the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt. Therefore, both the appeals are allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail, they are discharged of their bail bonds. Criminal Revision No, 24/1999 filed by the complainant is also dismissed.