1. AMER RAZA NAQVI, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that appellant was convicted by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) Sukkur in Sessions Case No,178 of 2007 State v.
2. Nadeem. Charge was framed by the learned trial Court on 4-3-2008. This case was initiated by complainant Anees son of Punhoon by caste Soomro by way of lodging F.I.R. No,19 of 2007 Police Station Jhangro. In the said F.I.R. It was alleged that deceased (wife of appellant) was married to appellant about 10/12 years back and she gave birth to a baby. It was further alleged that appellant was maltreating Aneesa on same matter in house on 11-7-2007. Narrating the details of incident complainant stated in the F.I.R. That he along with P.W. Raees and P.W. Akbar son of Meharuddin were going to meet sister of complainant and they met deceased and appellant at their house at 5-15 evening time, when deceased refused to accede to the request of appellant for meal on which according to allegation appellant became annoyed and strangulated the deceased in presence of complainant, P.W. Raees and P.W Akbar. According to complainant appellant had warned the P.
3. Ws. Not to come near the appellant. Complainant further stated that after killing deceased Aneesa by strangulating her appellant ran away and complainant called his father on telephone.
4. According to F.I.R. Complainant could not contact his father till 12-7-2007 next day of the incident which took place on 11-7-2007. Thereafter post-mortem was arranged before the funeral ceremony and after completing funeral ceremony according to complainant his father advised him to go to police station for report which he accordingly lodged alleging that appellant has strangulated from his both hands on the neck of deceased and committed murder.
5. ' After investigation the case was challaned and learned trial Court framed charge. According to charge appellant was charged to have murdered deceased Aneesa sister of the complainant by strangulating her and thereby committed Qatl-i-Amd punishable under section 302, P.P.C.
6. Appellant denied the charge and preferred to be tried.'
7. ' In support of case of prosecution, prosecution examined complainant .Anees as Exh.8, who produced F.I.R. At Exh.8/A. Dr. Rehana Memon, who conducted post-mortem was examined as Exh.9. She produced inquest form and post-mortem report as Exhs.9/A and 9/B. P.W. Races who was brother of deceased, and complainant was examined as Exh.10 and P.W Akbar Ali who was uncle of the deceased and complainant was also examined as P.W. Mashir Salahuddin was examined as Exh.12, who produced Danish Nama as Exh.12/A. P.W. Mir Muhammad was also examined who prepared sketch of Wardat. P.W. A.S.-I. Muhammad Khan Chang produced F.I.R.
8. Which he had registered as Exh.8/A. The same witness has brought the dead body to the hospital he was accompanied by complainant, his brother Raees and uncle Akbar. The said P.W has also produced a non-cog report vide Entry No,3 on 12-7-2007 at 8-30. In the said non-cog report witness has stated that complainant informed that he was available at Sukkur on 12-7-2007 and was informed by his one relative that his sister Mst. Aneesa wife of Nadeem Soomro has expired.
9. After receiving such information on telephone he went to the house of Nadeem .Ahmed Soomro and. Found that his sister was already lying dead in her house. Another police official Ali Murtaza* was examined as P.W.9, P.W.7 is only a Mashir of arrest of accused.
10. Prosecution has examined three eye-witnesses P.W. Anees, Raees and Akbar who, all are close relatives of deceased, two being brothers and one uncle of the deceased. All the three eye- witnesses have deposed that they were present at the time of incident and deceased was murdered in their presence and no explanation has, been given by them that why they did not make any effort to save the deceased or even to apprehend the appellant. In such situation their claimed presence is highly doubtful at the time of incident. It is not believable that appellant who was empty-handed was able to kill the deceased in presence of her two brothers and one uncle.
11. ' Learned counsel for the appellant has referred 2008 SCM R 95 and PLD 2007 SC 637 in support of his contentions and argued that in such situation Supreme Court has held that presence of such eyewitnesses is highly doubtful at the time of incident as despite they being nearly related to the deceased did not make any attempt to save the deceased. There is no plausible explanation by complainant that why he has not mentioned the facts narrated in the F.I.R. To the police at the time of filing of non-co& report, dated 12-7-2007 available on record as Exh. 15/A .
12. The post-mortem report produced by the doctor who was also examined Is contrary to the ocular evidence. Doctor has specifically mentioned that death of the deceased occurred due to asphyxia as a result of hanging caused by ligature.
13. ' Mr. Ali Haider the learned State Counsel in view of the above facts and circumstances did not support the impugned order and referred definition of ligature as has been given in the Australian Oxford Dictionary Second Edition Edited by Bruce Moore at the Australian. National Dictionary Centre Printed by Oxford University Press in which. Ligature has been defined as (1) a tie or bandage, especially in surgery for a bleeding artery etc. (2) Mus. A slur; a tie. (3) Printing two or more letters joined, e.g. (4) a bond; a thing that unites. (5) the act of tying or binding v.Tr. Bind or connect with a ligature.
14. ' He has also referred the last line of cross-examination of doctor in which she has stated as under:- "the case of Mst. Aneesa was of hanging and the death by throttling and strangulation cases carries different marks then the cases of hanging."
15. There is no enmity alleged against the doctor and doctor is so confident about her finding and as such her evidence cannot be brushed aside and this situation has created a lot of doubts about the incident to have happened as alleged by the eye-witnesses.
16. ' In view of the above facts and circumstances, in my humble opinion prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, appellant was wrongly convicted by the trial Court. These are the reasons for order, dated 4-5-2009, whereby the appeal of the appellant was allowed by way of a short order for reasons to be recorded later on.