' QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J.---Rubina Ahsan and her second husband Parvez Ahmad were done to death on 18-12-2005 at 8:30 p.m. Within the area of Gatta-Factory, Chak No,113/10-R situating at a distance of three miles from Police Station Jehanian District Khanewal. The incident was reported by Touseef-ur-Rehman (PW-7), a real brother of Parvez Ahmad, deceased straight at the Police Station through First Information Report Ex.PD at 12:15 a.m. On.19-12-2005; his case is that Rubina Ahsan earlier married with Arshad alias here appellant tied matrimonial knot with Parvez Ahmad, deceased. After divorce from her first husband, one and half year prior to the occurrence and in this backdrop, according to the complainant, Arshad alias Hera appellant as well as the family members of Rubina Ahsan harbored a grudge against the couple; on 17-12-2005, Samina Ahsan, a sister of Rubina Ahsan, deceased visited her in Lodhran and extended invitation for a visit and thus laid a trap, pursuant whereto, Rubina Ahsan and Parvez Ahmad left for Lodhran on 18-12- 2005 to return back at Asar prayer time, as the couple failed to return till Maghrib prayer time, the complainant along with Islam Hussain and Attique-ur-Rehman, PWs left for ,Lodhran where they reached at about 8:00 p.m. When both the deceased left for home in their company; at about 8:30 p.m. They were confronted by Arshad alias Hera, Doulatmand armed with 12 caliber short guns accompanied by an unknown persons. After exhortation, Doulatmand, appellant hit Parvez Ahmad with a fire shot on his chest while Arshad alias Hera, appellant fired on the back of Rubina Ahsan and fled from the scene while extending threats to the PWs, leaving behind both the deceased in a pool of blood, who succumbed to their injuries at the spot. Motive for the crime is second marriage by Rubina Ahsan with Parvez Ahmad. The Investigating Officer secured bloodstained earth and two casings of .12 caliber gun from the spot through inventory, besides taking other investigative steps.
Dr. Azizullah (PW-1) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Parvez Ahmad on 19-12-2005 at 2:00 p.m. Followed by 3:00 p.m. By Dr. Shahida Parveen (PW-3) on the dead body of Rubina Ahsan.
Parvez Ahmad deceased was noted to have five entry wounds on the chest with eight exits; ten metallic pellets and one plastic wad were retrieved from inside the chest. Rubina Ahsan, deceased sustained single fire shot injury on the sixth and seventh thoracic vertebral level with three exits; rigor mortis was present on both the dead bodies. Muhammad Arshad alias Hera appellant was arrested on 4-1-2006; during the course of investigation, pursuant to a disclosure, he led to the recovery of .12 caliber short gun (P-13) on 8-1-2006. Doulatmand and Samina Ahsan, co-accused were exonerated during the course of investigation. All the three accused were summoned to face trial by a learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Khanewal; they denied the charge and claimed trial, pursuant whereto, prosecution besides relying upon forensic reports, produced as many as ten witnesses to bring home charge against them, confronted with a unanimous denial. Report of Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. PV is in the negative. The learned trial Judge acquitted Mst. Samina Ahsan from the charge, however, proceeded to convict the appellants under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life along with compensation of Rs,200,000/- each to the legal heirs of the deceased or six months SI each in the event of default.
Benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that prosecution evidence is fraught with improbabilities, inconsistencies and contradictions and as such unworthy of reliance; there is delay between the incident and recourse to law and that presence of eye-witnesses is highly doubtful.
Contrarily, the impugned judgment is defended by the learned Law Officer assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, who additionally prayed for enhancement of sentence inflicted upon the appellants.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Case of the prosecution is hinged upon ocular account furnished by Touseef-ur-Rehman (PW-7) and Islam Hussain (PW-8); both of them are residents of Lodhran, admittedly 50-km away from the place of An occurrence; no doubt, they have rendered graphic details of the occurrence supported by medical evidence, however, their arrival at the spot at the relevant time warrants serious consideration for a variety of reasons. Once Samina Ahsan, real sister of Rubina Ahsan deceased visited her sister and brother-in-law on 17-12-2005 after coming all the way to Lodhran, there was hardly any apparent reason for deceased's visit to her house on the following day. If at all she had to extend some invitation, it did not require her to a one way journey of fifty kilometers just to see them on the following day. It is again prosecution's own case that at the time of arrival of the PWs, both the deceased had already left Samina Ahsan's house on their journey back home; if she had laid a trap as alleged in Ex.PD, the assailants did not need to wait till arrival of the PWs to mount their assault. Even otherwise, it is hard to believe that a real sister would play privy to a cold blooded murder of her sister. Once the appellants had decided: to eliminate the deceased, it did not require such an elaborate and tedious methodology. Another intriguing aspect of the case is arrival of the PWs at the spot in the absence of any apparent reason or threat; there was nothing to prompt them to follow the deceased and to come across the assailants exactly at a point of time when the deceased came under assault. Narrative details furnished by the eye-witnesses sans probability. They are chance witnesses; Touseef-urRehman (PW-7) made admission during cross- examination in the following terms:-- "The distance between our house and the place of occurrence i,e, Chak No,113/10-R is about 50 kilometers. No direct bus is available for Chak No,113/10-R. However, buses are available for Jahanian from Lodhran. I never went to Chak No,113/10-R before this occurrence. Pervaiz and Rubina when left my house for Chak No,113/10-R they were on foot and I do not know, if they had gone to the same chak by a bus or a rented car. It is correct it took about one and half hour from Lodhran to Jahanian on a bus. It is also correct that from Jahanian bus stop to Chak No,113/10-R it took about half an hour time. Both the deceased had gone to take lunch in Chak No,113/10-R because Samina had invited them for lunch. It was winter season and the lunch time was 2 to 3 p.m. At that time. According to their schedule they might have been back to home at 6 p.m. I do not remember the exact time. However, it was Maghribwaila when we being worried left for Chak No,113/10-R. It is correct that in those days Maghrib prayer time was about 5 p.m. It incorrect to suggest that neither both the deceased informed me before leaving for Chak No,113/10-R nor I along with any PW left for Jahanian from Lodhran to take care of the deceased (both)."
Report to the police cannot be described as prompt; postmortem examinations are delayed, admitting a space to infer that inquest reports were not prepared and thus First Information Report not recorded at a point of time stated therein. Forensic Science Laboratory Report is in the negative. Doulatmand, appellant was exonerated during the course of investigation. All these circumstances taken together, the case of the prosecution does not seem free from doubts and it would be thus unsafe to maintain the convictions. Consequently, by extending benefit of the doubt, Crl. Appeal No,433 of 2010 is allowed, the appellants are acquitted from the charge, they are on bail, their bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.
' As a natural corollary, Crl. Revision No,313 of 2012 also stands dismissed.