' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1730 of 2010 instituted by Muhammad Bashir (appellant) against acquittal of respondents Nos.2 to 5, namely Fazal- urRehman, Saeed Ullah Khan, Salah-ud-Din Khan and Hameed Ullah Khan, vide judgment dated 21.1.2010, pronounced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, on conclusion of their trial in a private-complaint (not exhibited in evidence), filed by the appellant (P.W.2), under sections 302, 449/34, P.P.C, which was virtually an off-shoot of case-FIR No,190/07, dated 7.8.2007, registered for offences under sections 302, 449/34, P.P.C., at police station Saddar Mianwali (Exh.PC), at the instance of Mst.Mehr Khatoon, real sister of the appellant.
2. The FIR-case (supra) was got registered by the complainant, Mst. Mehr Khatoon (since dead) with the allegation that her daughter Mst.Gul Khatoon widow of Abdul Raheem Khan and maternal granddaughter Mst.Sajida, aged 12, lived at Abadi Noofi Khelanwala, village Warta Khel. Pakka, where she stayed with them at night between 18/19.7.1998; they locked the outer-door from inside and slept in the compound of the house; Fazal-ur-Rehman, Saeed Ahmad Khan, Salahud-Din and Hameed Ullah Khan (respondents Nos.2 to 5) jumped outer-wall of the house, in the pitched darkness, to get into it; she got up as she heard the footfall; the respondents pounced upon her daughter and granddaughter, and forcibly took them to a room in the west, where they strangulated both of them to death; they clutched her as well and warned, if she disclosed their identity to anyone, it would be too risky for her; she lost her senses when she saw the dead bodies of her daughter and grand-daughter; the respondents got managed forced burial of the dead bodies and there was none to help her; the motive behind the occurrence was that her daughter inherited landed property of her deceased father. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, which she transferred later on to the sons of her brothers Bashir Khan and Ahmad Khan, besides, her brother Mehr Khan himself but gave nothing out of it to Muhammad Khan, which grudged the respondents and due to this reason they murdered hapless mother and daughter; she kept quiet for fear of the accused and did not report the matter to the police earlier. She lastly submitted an application dated 24.8.1998 (Mark-A) before the police on 7.8.2007, which formed basis for lodgment of FIR (Exh.PC), at 10.35 a.m., the same day. Prior to it, two orders had been made by the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Mianwali on 12.9.2006 and 29.5.2007 under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. For registration of a case against the accused/respondents.
3. After registration of the case, its investigation was conducted by Sanaullah SI (C.W.1), who inspected the place of occurrence and prepared visual site-plan (Exh.PA/2) about it; he got prepared site plan in-scale (Exh.PA/1) from Shafique Ahmad draftsman (P.W.1); he moved an application before the learned Ilaqa magistrate for exhumation of the dead bodies, but it was later on (28.8.2007) dismissed on the statement of Mst.Mehr Khatoon (complainant) that she made before the area magistrate; Salah-ud-Din, Hameed Ullah and Fazal-ur-Rehman joined the investigation, but he deferred their arrest in the face of insufficient evidence against them. On completion of investigation, the police found the case false and submitted cancellation-report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Before the area magistrate.
4. Being aggrieved of the investigation, Muhammad Bashir (P.W.2), son of Mst. Mehr Khatoon (complainant of FIR case) filed private-complaint against respondents Nos.2 to 5 on 19.3.2008, reproducing the story of the FIR, but with a little variation, that a panchayat had been convened on 23.8.1998, wherein the respondents confessed their guilt, as to committing murder of Mst.Gul Khatoon and her minor daughter Mst.Sajida, in presence of Muhammad Bashir (appellant/P.W.2), Ahmad Khan (P.W.3) and Mehr Khan PW (not produced). Learned trial court fulfilled requirement of sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. Before it summoned the respondents to stand trial in the complaint- case. It appears from the record that learned trial Court most probably, conducted consolidated proceedings in the challan-case and the private complaint-case.
5. On indictment, the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced three witnesses, namely Shafique Ahmad Khan draftsman (P.W.1), Muhammad Bashir (complainant/P.W.2) and Ahmad Khan (P.W.3), while rest, Sana Ullah SI/I0, Muhammad Altaf Khan, stamp vendor and Mushtaq Ahmad ASI were recorded as C.W.1 to C.W.3, respectively. Thereafter, the respondents were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., whereby they proclaimed their absolute innocence in the matter. Their consistent standpoint, that they rendered one by one, while answering the question "why this case against you and why the PWs have deposed against you", read as under:- "In the year 2005-06 civil litigation between the legal heirs of Mst. Gul Khatoon mentioned above with the present complainant and Ahmad Khan and Mehr Khan PWs initiated. In order to deter the legal heirs of Mst. Gul Khatoon from pursuing the civil litigation, Muhammad Bashir Khan complainant forced his mother Mst. Mehr Khatoon to start proceeding on baseless allegations altogether according to the prosecution, Mst. Gul Khatoon and Mst. Sajida died in the year 1998.
The proceedings started in the year 2006, which shows that the allegations are baseless and are counter blast of the suit mentioned above. The PWs are party to the civil litigation and they are deeply interest in the prosecution. Our family help the legal heirs of Mst. Gul Khatoon in the civil litigation and due to that grudge, I and my co-accused was involved in this false case."
' They opted not to appear under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor they adduced any evidence in their defence.
6. Learned trial court concluded trial of the respondents and pronounced their acquittal through the impugned judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the respondents callously murdered poor mother and daughter within the view of Mst. Mehr Khatoon, whom they silenced under threat of dire consequences; it was not too late when callousness of the respondents became talk of the town and in this background a panchayat of elders of the area was convened in the village on 23.8.1998, which questioned the respondents, who after a few hiccups admitted their guilt before a packed house with the contention that they had been deprived of their hereditary share by Mst.Gul Khatoon, so they did away with the deceased; the delay in lodgment of FIR had been caused by the police as Mst.Mehr Khatoon had submitted an application for registration of case on 24.8.1998, the next day of the panchayat; Mst.Mehr Khatoon was more than ninety (90) years of age' and a perennially sick person, hence, Muhammad Bashir (appellant) took up the issue and filed a private complaint against the respondents so as to take them to task for their barbarous act; the witnesses of extra-judicial confession tendered impeccable evidence against the respondents, which has not been properly appraised by the learned trial court, dealing with the matter too casually and acquitting the respondents in a slipshod manner; the impugned judgment is patently illegal, which may be set aside and respondents may be dealt with drastically for their heartlessness.
8. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 5 has submitted that the respondents were innocent and they had been falsely involved in this case by the appellant and his co-witnesses only to pressurize and blackmail them; the slain ladies were closely related to the respondents and they could not think of harming them in any manner; Mst.Mehr Khatoon fully knew about their innocence and she admitted this fact in her lifetime on more than one occasion; the locality where the unfortunate incident took place, was buzzed with the news that poor ladies had been murdered by some unknown persons in the darkness of the night, it is why Mst.Mehr Khatoon kept quiet for years before she wilted under the pressure of the appellant and others to lodge a false case against them; further submitted that the police found the respondents innocent and cancelled the case, whereafter Muhammad Bashir (appellant) filed a dishonest and mischievous complaint against them, as a civil suit had been instituted by the heirs of Muhammad Khan and others about the same landed property, against him (Muhammad Bashir) and his co-sharers; the learned counsel maintained that the respondents were not even remotely linked with the alleged occurrence and they had been rightly acquitted of the charge by the trial court.
9. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab showed satisfaction about the infallibility of the impugned judgment and submitted that the respondents had justly been acquitted by the learned trial court, therefore, this appeal might be dismissed.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant record with their intelligible assistance.
Mst. Mehr Khatoon, complainant of FIR (Exh.PC) was aged about 85, when she allegedly saw the respondents, Fazal-ur-Rehman, Saeed Ullah Khan, Salah-ud-Din and Hameed Ullah Khan strangulate her daughter Mst. Gul Khatoon and daughter's daughter/maternal granddaughter Mst.Sajida aged 12, to death at night between 18/19.7.1998 in a room of the house, where she was also present then. She was badly terrorized by the murderers, who threatened her to keep quiet or be ready for the consequences. She saw the dead bodies and lost her senses. Both the 'slain mother and daughter were buried the following morning without any information to the police. The motive alleged was that Mst. Gul Khatoon had transferred her agricultural land to the sons of her brothers Muhammad Bashir Khan (appellant) and Ahmad Khan, besides, her brother Mehr Khan, but gave nothing to Muhammad Khan, another brother of hers, which angered the killers, who took the vengeance and, murdered her along with her daughter. It was the story told by Mst. Mehr Khatoon through her written application (Mark-A), which bore date of its preparation as 24.8.1998, but presented before the police on 7.8.2007, more than nine years after the tragic incident. The dead A bodies of the ill-fated ladies were not subjected to postmortem examination nor those were ever disinterred for the said purpose. The police, though once moved for exhumation of the dead bodies through a written application, but Mst. Mehr Khatoon appeared before the learned Magistrate, seized with the matter, to show her disinclination to their disinterment and thus, caused dismissal thereof on 28.8.2007. She had obtained a couple of directory orders from the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, Mianwali on 12.9.2006 and 29.5.2007, before she got lodged FIR No,190/2007 (Exh.PC), which entailed the facts as precedingly narrated. She did not ever contend during investigation of this case that a panchayat of elders of the area on the issue of murder of her daughter and grand-daughter had been convened on 23.8.1998 and the respondents had confessed their guilt as to the said disaster before it. She failed the police in making any advancement in the sorrowful tale, so they prepared a cancellation report under section 173, Cr.P.C.
In the FIR case and presented it before the learned area magistrate in due course of time.
11. In the meanwhile, Muhammad Bashir Khan (appellant) chipped in with a private complaint under sections 302, 449/34, P.P.C. That he filed against the respondents on 19.3.2008 on the basis of the same allegations as mentioned in FIR (Exh.PC), but with the addition that the respondents had admitted their guilt as to murder of the poor ladies before participants of a panchayat and promised to pay Rs,15,00,000/- as blood-money to Mehr Khatoon but she did not like the idea and got FIR lodged against them. Mst.Mehr Khatoon was not cited as a witness in the complaint-case, which might mean that it had been instituted against her wish and will. Muhammad Bashir Khan appellant (P.W.2) and Ahmad Khan (P.W.3) are real sons of Mst.Mehr Khatoon and real brothers of Mst.Gul Khatoon (deceased). Their sons were beneficiaries of the generosity of Mst.Gul Khatoon as she transferred her landed property to them and some portion of it to her brother Mehr Khan as well. She did not oblige her other brother Muhammad Khan or any of his off-spring. Muhammad Khan, who is father of respondent Fazal-urRehmin Khan, instituted a civil suit about the same landed property, as having been gifted by Mst.Gul Khatoon (deceased) on 17.8.2006 against Ahmad Khan (P.W.3), Muhammad Bashir Khan (P.W.2) and Mehr Khan PW (not produced) and about a year thereafter when this suit was still pending, Mst.Mehr Khatoon got registered the FIR (Exh.PC) against the respondents. There is another glaring aspect of the case that Mst.Mehr Khatoon got first order from the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace for registration of case against the respondents on 12.9.2006, twenty five (25) days after filing of the above suit by Muhammad Khan and she obtained the second order under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. On 29.5.2007. All these informations have been rendered by Muhammad Bashir Khan (appellant/P.W.2) and Ahmad Khan (P.W.3) in their testimonies. It remains a fact that none of them is an eye-witness of the occurrence, despite they lived at the same place, as deposed about by Muhammad Bashir Khan (appellant/P.W.2). It looked as if Mst. Gul .Khatoon, Mst. Mehr Khatoon, Muhammad Bashir Khan appellant, Ahmad Khan and Mehr Khan all lived in the same compound, hence, their silence for about nine years would adversely reflect on the veracity of their statements. They both said that .The occurrence was witnessed only by Mst. Mehr Khatoon but they did not cite her a witness in the private-complaint, which fact is sufficient to demolish their case.
12. The police apparently concluded during investigation that both mother and daughter had been electrocuted and not murdered by anyone. It is why Mst. Mehr Khatoon or anyone else did not let dead bodies of the female deceased disinterred for holding an inquest into the cause of their death. An attempt made by the police in this regard was foiled by Mst.Mehr Khatoon herself on 28.8.2007 as stated by Sana Ullah SI/IO (C.W.1) in his testimony.
13. The contentions of Muhammad Bashir Khan (appellant/P.W.2) and Ahmad Khan (P.W.3) as to extra-judicial confession of the respondents before participants of a panchayat on 23.8.1998 surfaced for the first time on 19.3.2008, when private-complaint, not exhibited in evidence, was filed by Muhammad Bashir Khan (appellant/P.W.2), who contended that all the murderers (respondents) jointly admitted their guilt as to the murder of female-deceased and offered to pay Rs,15,00,000/- as blood-money but this idea was ejected by Mst. Mehr Khatoon. Ahmad Khan (P.W.3) also talked about confession of the respondents before the panchayat, but he termed it as having separately been made by them, with the addition that all four paid Rs,15,00,000/- to Liaqat Ali, paternal nephew of Inayat Ullah, real brother of the husband of Mst. Gul Khatoon (deceased).
The evidence of extra-judicial confession of the respondents is nothing but a mere gossip, having been maliciously fabricated by the appellant together with his co-witnesses so as to frustrate and pressurize the respondents who stood along side Muhammad Khan and supported him in his legal battle against Muhammad Bashir Khan (appellant) and others, who had instituted a civil suit against them. The private complaint had certainly been filed by the appellant regarding a non- issue and so was the case of FIR (Exh.PC). Both Mst. Mehr Khatoon and the appellant together with their group members kept sleeping for years over the issue of murder of the ill-fated duo and occasionally pulled and loosened the strings to move their case a bit, only to terrorize and harass the respondents, otherwise they fully knew about its untruthfulness and non existence.
14. The prosecution case was bound to collapse and it met the fate, it deserved. Learned trial court took rigours in discussing each and every bit of the non-issue and made some useful discussion by referring to various nonsensical depositions of the witnesses and to the irrelevant documents tendered in evidence. It was a case, which was inherently fallible and it fell to the ground with a thud in small pieces. There cannot be a worse example of some case having been conspiratorially and maliciously fabricated than the instant one, satanically brought forth against the respondents by the appellant. Two innocent female deceased probably died of electrocution but their nears and dears used their dead bodies to wreak vengeance upon the respondents, who were no strangers to them. They all did so only out of their lust for worldly gains. The FIR-case (Exh.PC) and the complaint-case having been taken up and rejected together through the impugned judgment by the learned trial court shouldn't have proceeded too long and they must have been extinguished at the nascent stage like an evil be nipped in the bud. The vulnerability of the prosecution case was per-se viewable and it was bound to fall in splinters, which it did, but after unnecessary delays. Nevertheless, it got finished and rightly so. It was virtually a case of no evidence and held as such by the learned trial court. It was certainly a hard earned acquittal by the respondents as they faced agony of the trial for years despite being innocent. Their acquittal through a judicial verdict has doubly enhanced potentiality of their innocence, which initially oozed from the time-old principle that every accused is innocent, till proved otherwise.
15. The well-settled principle of law is that a judgment of acquittal can only be interfered with if it looks wholly perverse, capricious, arbitrary, artificial, speculative or based on misreading or non- appraisal of the evidence on record, which incidentally is not the situation herein.
' Reliance in this regard may easily be had on, Alam Khan v. Swans Khan and 3 others (1996 SCM R 1742), Inayatullah Butt v. Muhammad .Favaid F and 2 others (PLD 2003 SC 563) and Mst. Saira Bibi v.
Muhammad Amiy. And others (2009 SCM R 946).
16. For the discussion supra, this appeal being meritless is dismissed.