' The appellant Ahmad Shah alias Gogey Shah has challenged his conviction awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, vide judgment dated 18.01.2010, in case FIR No. 731, dated 27.11.2005, under Section 302, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Noor Shah, District Sahiwal, who sentenced the appellant under Section 302-B, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/- in default of which to further undergo six months S.I . The benefit of Section 382-8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was also awarded to the appellant.
2. The prosecution's case unfolded in the F.I.R. By Talib Hussain complainant was that on 26.11.2005 at about 11.30 a.m., Mst. Shehnaz Bibi deceased (niece of the complainant) went to the fields to sow garlic but she did not return till evening. On search she was not found. On the next morning, her dead body was found in the sugarcane crop of Muhammad Hamzan Wattu. She was strangulated with her shawl (Dopatta). Muhammad Hanif and Falak Sher informed that they had seen Ahmad Shah accused/appellant sitting at the place of occurrence on the day of occurrence, i.e. On 26.11.2005 at about 01.00 a.m, who already used to tease the deceased. He had committed her murder after Zina.
3. Accused when charge 'sheeted did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Consequently, the evidence was lead by the prosecution and as many as 11-witnesses were recorded by the learned trial Court. Muhammad Hanif son of the complainant (P.W.1) and Falak Sher (P.W.2) have reiterated the version of the complainant. Muhammad Anwar (P.W.3) is witness of extra judicial confession.
Lady Doctor Afshan Akram W.M.O., D.H.Q. Hospital, Sahiwal, who conducted the post-mortem examination of dead body of the deceased appeared as PW-7. Statement of Abdul Rashid S.I. Was got recorded as PW-10, who conducted the investigation of the case and other aspects of investigation were also taken care of by him. Rest of the PWs are formal in nature.
4. Accused/appellant got recorded his statement u/S. 342, Cr.P.C. Where he denied the whole occurrence and professed his innocence. He opted to produce some documents in his defense. In reply to the question "why this case again you and why the PWs have deposed against you", he stated as under: "Actually it was blind murder. I was absent from village. In my absence I was made escape goat on the instigation of local MPA who was direct grudge against our family. It is pertinent to discuss that prior to this case, another case FIR No. 435/2000 u/S. 364-A, PPC was registered against me and my brother in which accusation of abduction of child, named Sadaqat A.I, Was levelled against us. And that case was also netted on the instigation of said Walayat Shah MPA. We all brothers tried under said case and finally acquitted and after our acquittal that abducted child was appeared in the village and residing in the village till now and I am made escape goat in this case. PWs and complainant are dependent of said MPA and they deposed falsely".
' He did not opt to appear as witness under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C., however, he produced some documents in defence. Upon conclusion of the trial above mentioned sentence was awarded to the appellant Ahmad Shah alias Gogey Shah.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, is based on mis-reading and non- reading of evidence as he has not appreciated the material contradictions and has convicted the appellant on the basis of surmises and conjectures. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the eyewitnesses were related interse to the complainant and even a single independent witness has not been produced to prove their version. He further stated that sufficient material is available on the record to justify that the appellant is innocent and his appeal is liable to be accepted.
6. On the other hand, learned D.D.P.P. Fully supported the impugned judgment, passed by the learned trial Court and opposed the grounds taken by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned D.D.P.P and minutely going through the record, it is observed that there are material contradictions between the prosecution's story and the evidence available on the record. The occurrence is admittedly un-witnessed and no evidence whatsoever is available on the word which could connect the appellant with the commission of offence. In this case conviction has been awarded to the appellant on the basis' is of two sets of evidence, firstly he was seen lastly by Muhammad Hanif PW-1 and Falaq Sher PW-2 at the place of occurrence, and secondly on the basis of extra judicial confession made by him before Muhammad Anwar PW-3 but there is not a single iota of evidence which can connect the appellant with this occurrence. In such like cases, the evidence is like a chain and if a single link is missing, whole story of the prosecution comes to an end and conviction of the accused/appellant in this case is primarily based on suspicion, hearsay evidence and extra judicial confession, which are weaker type of evidence for the purposes of conviction and such extra judicial confession does not lead the Court towards conviction. Furthermore, there are material contradictions in the statements of PWs recorded by the learned trial Court and the Investigating Officer under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Nothing is available on record with regard to the credential of PW-3 Muhammad Anwar before whom the appellant made an extra judicial confession as to whether he is influential person or not.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellant. Hence, keeping in view the discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the PWs, benefit of doubt cannot be denied to the appellant in the present circumstances, therefore, this appeal is accepted and the conviction recorded and the sentence awarded to the appellant Ahmad Shah alias Gogey Shah by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, vide judgment dated 18.01.2010, is set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. He shall be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other criminal case.