This appeal was filed against the acquittal of respondents by the High Court in a murder case. The Supreme Court examined the prosecution's case, which relied on circumstantial evidence including last-seen testimony, an extra-judicial confession, and recoveries. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged based on information from PW12, who initially failed to identify the culprits but later improved her version to implicate respondent No. 1. No evidence of conspiracy was established. The last-seen evidence was found unreliable due to the witnesses' unusual conduct and lack of proximity to the deceased. The extra-judicial confession was marred by significant improvements and contradictions. Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon was deemed unsafe as it was from an open, accessible place, and the chain of custody (Malkhana safety and dispatch to the laboratory) was not proven. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court found no misreading of the record and upheld the acquittal.
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---The facts of this case as well as the evidence produced before the trial court find an elaborate mention in the judgments passed by the courts below and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record we have observed that the occurrence in this case had taken place during a night in the month of December and according to the FIR the culprits had remained unknown at the spot. The FIR in this case had been lodged by the complainant upon an information supplied to him by PW12 namely Mst. Saleeman Bibi, mother of Rehana Kausar deceased, and according to that information PW12 had not been able to identify any of the culprits at the time of the occurrence. PW12 had not noticed anything unusual in the conduct of respondent No, 1 who was her son-in-law and according to the story narrated by the said witness even respondent No, 1 was one of the persons who had been forcibly taken away by the culprits. Before the trial court PW12 had improved her version and had implicated respondent No, 1 along with the other accused persons and it had been maintained by the prosecution before the trial court that the other accused persons were in connivance with respondent No 1 and it was respondent No, 1 who had maneouvered the murder of his wife namely Mst. Rehana Kausar through an incident which was planned by respondent No,
1. No evidence had been produced before the trial court regarding hatching of any conspiracy by respondent No, 1 with his co-accused vis-a-vis the murder in issue. The prosecution had produced two witnesses regarding the last-seen evidence and they were PW6 and PW7. PW6 was closely related to the complainant and to PW12 and the conduct displayed by him was nothing but unusual A detracting from the veracity of his statement. PW7 was in fact not a witness of last-seen because he had claimed to have seen some of the accused persons at a time when Mst. Rehana Kausar deceased was not with them. The prosecution had produced PW8 as a witness of an extrajudicial confession allegedly made by respondent No, 1 but the said witness had made significant improvements before the trial court and had also made a contradictory statement. The medical evidence produced by the prosecution was not of much avail to the prosecution because the murder in issue had remained unwitnessed and, thus, the medical evidence could not point an accusing finger towards any of the culprits implicated in this case. The only other piece of evidence relied by the prosecution was in the shape of recovery of the weapon of offence and its matching with a crime-empty secured from the place of occurrence. We have noticed that the weapon in issue had allegedly been recovered from a place which was open and accessible to all and sundry and, thus, it was unsafe to place reliance upon such recovery. Apart from, that none had seen respondent No, 1 firing at the deceased and, thus, mere recovery of a weapon of offence matching with a crime- empty was not sufficient to provide corroboration to the other pieces of circumstantial evidence. It had never been proved before the trial court that the weapon of offence had been kept in the Mal Khana safely after its recovery and its dispatch to the Forensic Science Laboratory was also not proved by any witness. For all these reasons the High Court had concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against respondents Nos. 1 and 4 beyond reasonable doubt and had, thus, acquitted the said respondents of the charge. Upon our own independent evaluation of the evidence available on the record we have not been able to take a view of the matter different from that taken by the High Court. Apart from that no misreading or non-reading of the record on the part of the High Court has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant so as to warrant interference with the impugned judgment of acquittal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
The bail bonds and sureties of respondents Nos. 1 and 4 shall stand discharged.