DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.--- Crl. Appeal No.38-L/2012: The appellant, as usual and noticed by us, was sentenced to death by the Trial Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad under section 302(b), P.P.C. with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs and to suffer further six months in case of default of payment of fine. However, on appeal, the High Court while maintaining his conviction reduced his sentence from death to life under section 302(b), P.P.C. while the compensation amount was maintained.
2.. Brief but relevant facts are that the appellant was charged for inflicting blunt injury on the head of the deceased Muhammad Rizwan on the night of 6.9.2001 with an iron rod along with co- accused, since acquitted and the FIR to this effect was lodged by the father of the deceased namely, Muhammad Ashraf Javed (PW-8) but probably on the spot and that too after two and half days i.e. on 8.9.2001 at 2:45 p.m., after the deceased succumbed to the head injury in the hospital.
3. According to the Prosecution, the deceased was taken from his house by the acquitted co- accused Zaheer but he did not turn up, father and the other PWs decided to search for him and when they reached at the crime spot, in Street No.10, they saw the appellant and acquitted co- accused grappling and quarreling with the deceased and in their presence the appellant inflicted injury on the head of the deceased with an iron rod. Motive for the crime was previous litigation and tense relations between the parties.
4. At the conclusion, the order referred to above was passed and appeal before the High Court partly allowed, as stated above.
5. We have gone through the evidence.
In this case, the ocular account furnished, is suffering from legal and factual infirmities and does not appeal to a prudent mind, much less legal one because the deceased was taken from the house which is few yards away to Street No.10 but the casualty waited for the arrival of the PWs for 45 minutes or more. How the PWs reached the spot from each direction and how they assumed that probably the deceased was in Street No.10. No witness has been produced to show that the PWs were in search of the deceased on the fateful night. The deceased was having solitary injury, major one/fatal one, but the father decided to get him cured through a private medical practitioner and his name has been brought on record without his professional qualification. The autopsy report and the operation notes would show that several pieces of clothes in the cranial cavities of the deceased were found and why he went into semi-coma condition after midnight and he was then taken to the hospital.
6. The hospital is closely situated to the Police Station but neither the complainant nor PWs took a little pain to report the matter, nor the staff of the hospital including the treating doctor took initiative. To telephonically inform about the arrival of the medicolegal case/patient to cover up the long delay in reporting the matter, many false excuses were advanced by the complainant and other PWs but to that effect no independent witness was produced to corroborate them that the accused was restraining them not. to report the matter thus, this fact creates serious doubts in the prosecution case and favours the defence theory to a considerable extent.
7. The Investigating Officer did not take into possession the Bulb, source of light, allegedly lit at the crime spot and no reason has been shown for such omission which was the only source of identification. Medico-legal Report of the deceased and the autopsy report are inconclusive and even the medical officer who conducted the autopsy has conceded that the fatal injury a single wound was possible due to fall from height which support the plea of the defence that services of the deceased were hired on contract for fixing lights on the electric poles and he fell down therefrom and sustained injuries.
8. The recovery of the iron rod would show that it was not blood stained why it was not sent to the Chemical Examiner. The motive has been disbelieved by the High Court thus, in view of the facts and circumstances, when the evidence led by the Prosecution is entirely undependable and no independent, strong and corroboratory evidence of unimpeachable nature is available, thus, we are of the view that learned Courts below failed to follow the settled principles regulating appraisal and re-appraisal of evidence and in this way landed in the field of misconception and thus wrong conclusion was drawn.
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted from all the charges leveled against him. He shall be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case.
Crl. A. 37-L/12: This appeal has been filed for enhancement of the sentence of the accused respondent, who is appellant in the above appeal and once we have acquitted him, this appeal has lost its legal worth to be debated upon and is dismissed as such.