' MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---Mst. Khan Bibi wife of Arz Muhammad, appellant herein, impugned the judgments dated 30th May, 2007 and 19th July, 2008, passed by Additional Sessions, Judge-IV, Quetta, whereby private respondents, Saleh Muhammad, Abdul Malik and Muhammad Arif, were acquitted of the charge under section 302 read with sections 147, 148 and 149 of the P.P.C.
Since the Criminal Acquittal Appeals No,151 of 2007 and 221 of 2008 are outcome of one and same incident and that the above named respondents have been acquitted of the charge, one after the other, thus, we proposed to decide the same through this common judgment.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 21st July, 2005 at about 9-30 a.m., complainant Mst. Khan Bibi lodged Crime No,98 of 2005 with Police Station Shalkot, Quetta, alleging therein that her son Ghulam Nabi left his house at 7-00 p.m. And at about 9-00 a.m. She was informed by the police authorities regarding the murder of his son, whose dead body was lying at Civil Hospital, Quetta. On receipt of such information, she rushed to Civil Hospital along with her relatives and found the dead body of deceased Ghulam Nabi in a pool of blood, having sustained firearm injuries on different parts of the body and she showed suspicion that the murder was committed by one Muhammad Anwar and Noor Muhammad, on account of previous enmity, as the said accused had implicated the deceased and one Malik Dad for commission of theft of their goats.
3. After usual investigation, the challan was submitted before the trial Court, where separate charges were framed against the accused/ respondents, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate the accusation and bring home the charge, the prosecution produced and examined nine witnesses. P. W.1 Mst. Khan Bibi is complainant of the case, who brought on record her written report as Exh.P/1-A. P.W.2 Gohar Khan, P.W.3 Abdul Khaliq and P.W.4 Noor Muhammad are the alleged eyewitnesses of the occurrence, who claimed to have seen the occurrence. P.W.5 Dr. Syed Baqir Shah is Medical Officer, who examined the dead body of deceased Ghulam Nabi and issued Medico legal Certificate Exh.P/5-A. P.W.6 Ghulam Rasool is brother of deceased Ghulam Nabi, who had deposed about the background of enmity existed between the parties. P.W.7 Muhammad Latif, SI, is the recovery witness of empties, which were collected from the place of occurrence through recovery memos' Exh.P/7-B and Exh.P/7-C. He produced the site inspection note as Exh.P/7-A and blood-stained earth as well as blood-stained clothes of deceased as Art.P/1 and Art.P/4, whereas P.W.8 Aurangzeb, SI, and P.W.9 Khalid Mehmood, SI, are the investigating officers of the case.
4. The accused were examined under section 342 of the Cr.P.C., wherein once again they denied the prosecution allegation and claimed to be innocent and also recorded their statements on oath and produced Alined Jan, Asghar Ali and Moula Bakhsh in their defence.
5. On conclusion of the trial and hearing learned counsel for the parties the accused/respondents were acquitted of the charge, one after the other through separate judgments, as initially Abdul Malik and Muhammad Arif faced the trial and acquitted of the charge and, subsequently, Saleh Muhammad, hence these appeals.
6. Mr. Muhammad Qahir Shah, learned counsel for the appellant, in both the appeals, contended that the respondents are real culprits and they have been wrongly let off by the trial Court and the acquittal orders have illegally been passed. It was also argued that the occurrence took place in broad daylight and there was no question of mistaken identity at all. The ocular account furnished by the eyewitnesses was fully corroborated by the medical evidence as well as circumstantial evidence and the trial Court wrongly discarded the same.
7. On the other hand. M/s. Obaidullah Quresh and Ali Hassan Bugti, learned counsel for the private respondents, have opposed the arguments so advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and supported the impugned acquittal orders, on the ground that nothing incriminating has brought on record, which could suggest the involvement of accused/respondents in the commission of the offence, thus, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents, which does not call for any interference.
8. We have perused the whole evidence with the valuable assistance of learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the statements of P.Ws. Gohar Khan, Abdul Khaliq and Noor Muhammad, we have no hesitation to hold that they have failed to inspire our confidence. They are not only chance witnesses, but have also made dishonest improvements in order to strengthen the case of prosecution. The F.I.R. Has been lodged on the basis of suspicion, that too, without nominating the present respondents. Although the presence of the respondents, while armed with sticks, was shown at the place of occurrence by the alleged eye-witnesses, but the host of circumstances belied the same and there is clash between the ocular and medical evidence.
Admittedly, all the alleged eye-witnesses are close related to the deceased and they have failed to account for their presence at the time and place of alleged incident. We are mindful of the fact that mere relationship with the deceased by itself is not sufficient to discard their evidence, but the Court always look for independent corroboration, while in the instant cases, the claim of the witnesses to have seen the occurrence is not only a tall claim but tall enough that creates serious doubts about its genuineness, as such, the claimed presence of the aforesaid eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence at relevant time is replete with serious doubts. The prosecution has also alleged motive in Exh.P/5-A, but has failed to prove the same. Prosecution, no doubt, is not required to disclose or setup a motive, but once it chooses to do so, then it becomes its obligation to prove the same by cogent and confidence inspiring evidence and failure in doing so would not only damage the credibility of the prosecution's case beyond repair, but it would also fatal for it.
9. There is another important aspect of the case, which creates serious doubt about the presence of alleged eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence. In this regard, we find that their conduct, at the time of incident, was not normal, as they had not tried to save the life of the deceased and they had also not tried to catch the culprits. Although hard and fast rules about the human conduct and behaviour are not available, yet in the light of accepted standards of human behaviour, it can safely he said that in the normal course of events, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 should have tried to save the life of their close relative and, at least, after escape of the alleged culprits, should have shifted the injured Ghulam Nabi to hospital, instead of moving to their respective jobs.
Admittedly, in the normal course of events, they would not have left their near and dear in a helpless injured condition. The conduct exhibited by the said witnesses is offensive to normal human behaviour, therefore, we are not ready to believe their evidence.
' For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere in the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Quetta in Crime No,98 of 2005, through its judgment dated 30th May, 2007 and 19th July, 2008, whereby the respondents were acquitted of the charge, resultantly, both the criminal acquittal appeals are dismissed, being meritless.