Muhammad Ahmad- appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge/Judge Juvenile Court, Sahiwal in case FIR No.32/201 1 under Sections 302 P.P.C.,, Police Station Fareed Town, Sahiwal and vide judgment dated 10.10.201 1, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant under section 302. (b) PPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life along with payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-recoverable as arrears of land revenue and in case the same is recovered, half of the same shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Mst. Naseem Akhtar as compensation under section 544-A Cr.PC. In case of non-payment, he shall further undergo six months simple imprisonment.
Benefit of section 382-B of Cr .P.0 was extended.
2. Being aggrieved with his above conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed instant appeal.
3. Brief facts of the case, gist of prosecution story , stance of learned counsel for the appellants and the prosecution has already been discussed in detail in the impugned judgment of learned trial Court; hence, there is no need to mention the same here.
4. I have considered the respective argnments of learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perused the available record with their assistance.
5. In this case, the occurrence, was taken place on 17.01.201 1 after 6:00 a.m., FIR was registered at 11:25 a.m. with a delay of five and half hours. As per prosecution case, PW.8-Khalid Saeed and PW.7, Muhammad Tariq at the time of occurrence reached at the place of occurrence, apprehended the convict/appellant at the spot and these witnesses admitted that the distance betw een the Police Station and place of occurrence is 5/6 acres and Police Station is situated on a metal road but why they did not inform the police immediately and why the FIR was registered after delay of more than five hours. During cross-examination, the prosecution witnesses, tried to improve their statements by saying that during this period they remained busy to inform their relatives about the occurrence. This part of the evidence introduced at the time of trial is dishonest improvement and does not appeal to prudent mind and this explanation could never be considered as valid explanation for the lodging of FIR with inordinate delay . Hence, delay in lodging of the FIR creates serious doubt qua the prosecution story .
6. The ocular account was furnished by Muhammad TariqPW .7 (Complainant of the case) and one Khalid Saeed- PW.8. The occurrence in this case took place in the, area of Block-G i.e. House No.346-G, Farid Town, Sahiwal where the deceased-Mst. Naseem Akhar was residing, whereas, PW.7 namely Muhammad Tariq is resident of Chak No.89/6-R. Although, the complainant while appearing as PW.7 deposed that he used to visit the house of Mst. Naseem Akhtar-deceased after offering his 'Fajjar Prayer' and on the day of alleged occurrence, as a matter of routine, he offered, his 'Fajjar Payer' in Masjid Shohda. situated in Farced Town, Sahiwal, however , he admitted that there are 2/3 Masjids in his village i.e. Chak No.89/6- and said Chak having surrounding of 6/7 acres consists upon 6000/7000 residents; hence, in these circumstances, it is unbelievable to a prudent mind that as to why the complainant had not been offering his 'Fajjar Prayer' in his own Chak admittedly , having 2/3 Masjids. Hence, this fact coupled with the admitted fact that PW.7 is permanent resident of Chak No.89/6-R creates doubt regarding his presence at the place of occurrence especially when no other independent evide nce is available on the file that these witnesses PW.7 and PW.8 daily came to the residence of deceased-Nase em Akhtar after 'Fajar Prayer'.
Moreover , PW.7 and PW.8 stated that after 'Fajar Prayer' they jointly came to the house of Mst. Naseem Akhtar at House No.346-G, 'Farid Town but during the cross-examination, PW.7 stated that he recited 'Fajar Prayer in Mosque Shohda, whereas, PW.S-Khalid Saeed stated that he recited 'Fajar Prayer' in a different Mosque Abu Safian and as per PW.8 both the above referred Mosques relate to 'Dio Sandi' seet and in our society , the Mosque of same sect are normally situated from a distance with each other to cover a large number of area of the community . In these circumstances, whether these two PWs, joined each other , the prosecution is silent in this respect and this aspect when examined in the light of delayed FIR, creates serious doubt qua the story of these witnesses about their arrival at the place of occurrence jointly and their statements that they have saw the occurrence.
7. Both the witnesses are not resident of same house, allegedly came from a dista nce to the place of occurrence, they are chance witnesses and they have to establish the reason of their presence at the place of occurrence and if they daily used to visit the place of occurrence after 'Fajar Prayer', they have to establish this fact but the prosecution has failed to prove that these witnesses daily used to visit the house of deceased after 'Fajar Prayer .
No inmate of the house or neighbor supported the stance of these witnesses; hence, their presence after 'Fajar Prayer and their stance that they saw the convict/appellant pressing the throat of the deceased could not be believed. Moreover , both these witnesses are close relatives of the deceased and they are interested witnesses.
Although, evidence mere on the basis of relation could not be denied but have to be scrutinized carefully and especially when they are not inmate of the house and they are chance witnesses and could not prove the reason of their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. Hence, the ocular account furnished by these witnesses is not worthy of credence and same is disbelieved.
8. Apart from above, PW.7 stated that he had a key of the house with him and by using the same, he opened the outer gate of the house but to prove their story they have to produce this key before the Investigating Officer.
Neither these witnesses produced the said key before the Investigating Officer nor same was taken into possession by the Investigating Of ficer which also shattered the story of these two witnesses i.e. PW .7 and PW .8.
9. Postmortem (Exh. PC) of deceased- Mst. Naseem Akhtar was conducted by Dr. Ammara, Women Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, Sahiwal at 3:00 p.m., on 17.1.201 1. As per postmortem, there were seven injuries on the dead body , of the deceased. Although, on-the pictorial diagram (Exh.PC/1 & PC/2), only .four injuries are mentioned and this doctor was not available and Dr. Arooba Munir . DHQ Hospital, Sahiwal appeared and exhibited postmortem report (Exh.PC) and in postm ortem, cause of death was not opined, cause of death was to be declared after receiving the report of Chemical Examiner of the viseera and after receipt of the report of Chemical Examiner , PW.4-Dr . Arooba Munir declared the cause of death. As per report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PL), no poison was detected and PW-4, Dr. Arooba declared the cause of death injury No.7. If the cause of death was injury No.7 and interference in respiration at- the level of neck and chest, this fact was available at the time when Dr. Ammara, Women Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, Sahiwal conducted the postmortem then why she did not declare the cause of death at that time and kept pending her opinion till the report of Chemical Examiner .
10. As discussed above that as per report of Chemical Examiner (Exh.PL), no poison was detected and as at the time of occurrence the age of convict/appellant was about 14 years and was a student of 7th class whereas the deceased age was 50 years well built having good health; hence, in these circum stances, it is not possible that a boy of 7th class could press the throat of a well built with good 1. health lady because when the deceased was not under the influence of any poison or narcotics, she could resist to assailant espec ially when he is 'a chap of aging 14 years. From postmortem' report, she received seven injuries and-when she was not under the influence of poison; or narcotics, she must awoke up and straggle to rescue her life and resist the assailant. When from the bed sheet of the deceased and the other facts narrated in the FIR, inspection notes at the time of visit of the Investigating Officer to the place of occurrence and statement of the Investigating Officer in this respect, it is not established that any resistance or struggle appears to be caused by the deceased; hence, possibility could not be ruled out that either the accused was a young man having strong body who could occupy a well built lady i.e. deceased or there were more than one accused.
11. From postmortem (Exh.PC) as_ discussed above, all the injuries have not been mentioned in pictorial diagram and even in other number of cases this Court has observed that perhaps the medico legal or the postmortem are being conducted by some unexperienced doctors alternately damaging to the prosecution case. Considering it a serious issue a committee is constituted to be headed by (i) the , Registrar , Lahore High Court and it shall include
(ii) Secretary , Specialized Healthcare & Medical Education. Department, Govt. of the Punjab, (iii) Secretary .
Primary & Secondary Healthcare, (iv) Prosecutor General, Punjab and (v) the Direc tor General District Judiciary as its members. The Registrar shall convene the meeting. This committee shall chalk out the training program of the doctors at Divisional Headquarters where the Government Colleges are available having department of Forensic.
This Committee may opt any other person as its member .
12. The whole quantum of my analytical examination of evidence reveals that presence of the eyewitnesses at the spot at the relevant time of occurrence is not believable. In order to justify their presence at the spot, they concocted a false story . I also found sufficient doubts and dents in the prosecution story which makes its case highly doubtful and the benefit, of doubt how slightest always goes to the accused. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted from the charges levelled against him. He be release d forthwith if not required in any other case. Case property , if any be disposed of in accordance with law. Lower Court record be returned immediately .