QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J:-Ameer Begum, 50/55, henceforth referred to as the deceased, was fatally shot, inside the safety of her home by two unknown pillion riders on 21-7-2014 at 9:00 p.m. within the area of village Latifaal situating at 15 miles from Police Station Neela District Chakwal; incident was reported by Sher Baz (PW-14), deceased' s brother-in-law (Dewar ) through statement EX.PA recorded by Muhammad Akram SI (PW-15)
10:45 p.m. at D.H.Q. Hospital Chakwa l; beside the inmates, Arshad Mehmo od son of Khan Bahadar and Muhammad Irfan son of Muhammad Zumarrad were cited as eye-witnesses, nonetheless, subsequently transposed as accused. The deceased in injured condition was rushed for medical assistance, however , succumbed to the injuries.
Autopsy conducted at 3:20 p.m. on 22-7-2014 by Noreen Sultana (PW-13) revealed six entry wounds on outer aspect, elbow joint and inner aspect of right arm; right axilla, right flank, right thigh and on posterior side of buttock.
Injuries on right arm and right flank were surrounded by blackening around their margins. Time between injuries and death is estimated as within three hours whereas between death and autopsy as eight. Hemorrhagic shock is blamed as cause of death.
Spot inspection includes seizure of blood and six casings of .30 caliber , besides investigative steps of formal nature. On the following day i.e. 22-7-2014, the complainant came up with a supplementary version wherein he arrayed his two witnesses as well as the appellant and Muhammad Zummard as accused for the crime; after dismissal of their bail plea, they were arrested on 11-11-2014; the appellant pursuant to a disclosure, led to the recovery of .30 caliber pistol (P-6); remainder were exonerated. Indicted on 8-1-2015, the accused claimed trial; prosecution produced as many as seventeen witnesses to drive home the charge; on forensic side, blood secured from the spot was opined as that of human origin; casings did not wed with weap on (P-6). The case is structured upon the statements of Sher Baz (PW-14) and deceased' s daughter Haleem Bibi (PW-12); they claimed to have witnessed the assault. Muhammad Ilyas (PW-5) has helped the prosecution to establish enmity between the deceased and Arshad Mehmood, co-accused whereas Anjum Abbas (PW-6) is witness of having seen the appellant with an unknown person speeding away from the scene soon after the occurrence. Taj Muhammad Khan (PW-10) is witness of overhearing cons piracy for deceased' s elimination being an obstacle over a disputed proposal. Khan Bahadar (PW-11) is witness of a disclosure by Arshad Mehmood accused in the company of Zummard Khan in a bid for pardon. Prosecution evidence is confronted with a unanimous denial, based upon hypothesis of dacoity , alibi and past enmity . The learned trial Judge proceeded to acquit Muhammad Zummard, Arshad Mehmood and Irfan from the charge, however , convicted the appellant under clause (b) of section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860; he is sentenced to imprisonment for life with compensation in the sum of Rs.200,000/- or to undergo six months SI in the event of default with benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vide judgment dated 26-4-2016, vires whereof, are being impugned through Crl. Appeal No.300 of 2016; Crl. Revision No.279 of 2016, by the complainant is directed for enhancement of sentence; acquitted accused have been spared both by the complainant as well as State; both matters, bearing a common thread, are being decided through this single judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is not named in the crime report and his implication through a supplementary statement, purportedly recorded on the following day, is not compatible with various investigative steps, coinciding the move; that identically placed co-accused since acquitted, the same set of witnesses cannot be relied against the appellant without independent corroboration, hopelessly lacking; that forensic report being in the negative, the entire edifice is raised to the ground; the bottom line is that the stance taken by the complainant as well as the witnesses is mutually destructive when juxtaposed with the crime report Ex.PA. Contrarily , the learned Law Officer assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has defended the impugned judgment on the ground that complainant in an extreme crisis situation was duped by the co-accused, as Arshad Mehmood acquitted co-accused initially cited as a witness being son-in-law of the deceased, initially prevailed to misdirect the course of justice; it is argued that complainant and other witnesses, after the impact of incident subsided, came up with the actual facts and, thus, accused cannot be extended premium for their own wrongdoing in the face of massive evidence, inexorably pointed upon the appellant; while arguing Criminal Revision, learned counsel has prayed for enhancement of sentence of imprisonment for life into death being a normal wage for the crime; life for life, he insisted vehemently .
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Prosecution case initially set up through complaint Ex.PA is unambiguously pointed upon two unknown assailants surprising the deceased within the view of Sher Baz (PW-14) and her daughter Haleema Bibi (PW-12), joined by Arshad Mehmood and Muhammad Irfan; the appellant is conspicuous by his absence at the scene.
Complaint Ex.PA is a massively interpo lated document. Initially Arshad Mehmood and Muhammad Irfan are mentioned as witnesses who saw the unknown assailants fleeing from the scene, however , their status has been graduated to that of eye witnesses through cutting and interpolations open to naked eye. Overwriting at the time of preparation of complaint is also unmistakably visible.
Supplementary statement is a diametrical departure from prosecution' s original position; it is purportedly recorded during the early part of the following day, when the Investigating Officer visited the spot. Surprisingly , details given in the said statement are not compatible with the site plan of even date wherein unambiguously , unknown assailants are, once again, blamed for the crime; none from amongst the witnesses of last seen figures in site plan Ex.PL wherein instead at point No.6, Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Irfan are repeatedly shown as those who had seen the unknown assailants fleeing from the scene. Site plan with scale is prepared by Muhammad Munir Draftsman (PW-3); he inspected the spot on 25-7-2014 to take rough notes at the instance of the witnesses; date as 25-7-2014 is once again interpolated, as initially , it was written 25-8-2014; the plan is handed over to the police on 3-8-2014; once again, unknown assailants figure prominently with Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Khan as eye witnesses; there is cutting in the red notes by the Investigating Officer as well; he has attempted to alter digit 8 into 7 to bring preparation of site plan back in the month of July; interpolations are blatant to say the least and leave no space to admit supplementary stateme nt as being recorded on 22-7-2014; exercise was carried out much late in the day. Prosecution' s adherence to its initial case seemingly till 1 week of August brings statements of all the witnesses, pointed upon the appellant, into disarray inasmuch as had they come forward at a point of time suggested by them, they must have found mentioned not only in the brief facts of inquest report Ex.PJ but also in the plans as well, at least to the extent of eye witnesses and those of last seen; supplementary statement and case set up on the foundations thereof, merits rejection without demur . Same goes for the statement of Haleema Bibi (PW-12), suggesting a dying declaration by the deceased, an elderly woman with six shots on different parts of her body , had hardly an occasion or capacity to share information with her daughter standing next to her, watching the incident herself, in preference to Sher Baz (PW-14); script is poor to say the least. Even otherwise, it is by now well settled that supplementary statement, essentially a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be equated with First Information Report nor can be read in extension thereof.
Witnesses of last seen and extrajudicial confession do not improve upon prosecution's case as well; on the contrary, they heavily reflect upon its attempts to frame the accused with all possible methods in order to secure a conviction; with an ocular account poised on the accused, prosecution hardly needed support of circumstantial evidence, a source less than sustainable, otherwise found far from being confidence inspiring. On the whole, prosecution case is not free from doubts; doubts neither imaginary or illusory; on the contrary, deducible from prosecution's stated positions and, thus, it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction without potential risk of error. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No.300 of 2016 is allowed; the appellant is acquitted from the charge and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
As a natural corollary , Crl. Revision No.279 of 2016 stands dismissed .