MALIK SHAHZAD AHMAD KHAN, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal No.257189-J of 2018, filed by Nasir Abbas and Mst. Gul Fishan (appellants), against their convictions and sentences recorded vide impugned judgment dated 02.10.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal.
2. Nasir Abbas and Mst. Gul Fishan (appellants), were tried in case FIR No.287 dated 07.05.2017, registered at Police Station City Bhalwal, District Sargodha, in respect of offences under section s 302/34, P.P.C. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 02.10.2018, has convicted and sentenced Nasir Abbas and Mst. Gul Fishan (appellants) as under:- Nasir Abbas:- Under sections 302(b)/34, P.P.C. to imprisonment for life as tazir. He was also ordered to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand only) to the legal heirs of Shehar Yar (deceased) as comp ensation under section 544-A of Cr.P.C. and in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
Gul Fishan:- Under sections 302(b)/34, P.P.C. to imprisonment for life as tazir. She was also ordered to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five hundred thousand only) to the legal heirs of Shehar Yar (deceased) as compensation under section 544-A of Cr . P. C. and in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for six months.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr . P. C. was also extended to the appellants.
3. Brief facts of the case as given by the complainant Muhammad Riaz (PW-8), in his Fard Bayan (Ex.PD/1), on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ex.PD) was chalked out, are that about two years earlier , the son of the complainant namely Shehar-Y ar (deceased) aged about 19/20 years contracted love marriage with Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) and on the insistence of his wife namely Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant), he started living at Ashraf Colony , Bhalwal.
The son of the complainant often used to make contact with the complainant through telephone. About 11/2 months prior to the occurrence, Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) developed illicit relations with Nasir Abbas (appellant) and when it came into the knowledge of Shehar-Y ar (deceased), a dispute arose between the spouses, which fact was told by Shehar-Y ar (deceased) to the complainant. On 07.05.2017, the complain ant along with his sons namely Muhammad Shahbaz (PW since-given-up) and Zeeshan (PW-9), reached at Ashraf Colony , Bhalwal, at 8.30 p.m., in order to meet Shehar-Y ar (deceased) and his wife Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant). The main door of the house was open and the bulbs of the courtyard and room were lit. The complainant along with PWs reached at the door of a room of the abovementioned house wher e they saw that Nasir Abbas (appellant) had put a "Churri" on the neck of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) and with his left hand, the said appellant had pressed the face of the deceased, whereas Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) was repeated ly causing injuries on the head of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) with the help of 'Roras' (pieces of bricks). The complaina nt party tried to apprehend the appellants but Nasir Abbas (appellant) while wielding "Churri"' threatened that if anybody would try to come near, his fate shall be just like the fate of Shehar-Y ar (deceased). Due to fear, the complainant party did not step forward. Thereafter Nasir Abbas (appellant) took a 'Rora' (piece of brick) from Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) and made a lethal blow on the head of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) while pointing "Churri" towards the complainant party with his other hand. Shehar-Y ar (deceased) succumbed to the injuries at the spot, whereas the appellants decamped from the place of occurrence.
The motive behind the occurrence was that about 1-1/2 months prior to the occurre nce, Mst. Gul Fishan and Nasir Abbas (appellants) had developed illicit relationship with each other due to which a dispute arose between Shehar- Yar (deceased) and Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) and because of the said grudge, the appellants committed the murder of Shehar-Y ar (deceased).
4. The appellants were arrested in this case by the police and after completion of investigation the challan was prepared and submitted before the learned trial court. The learned trial Court, after observing legal formalities, as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 framed charge against the appellants on 25.10.2017, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced twelve witnesses. Prosecution also produced documentary evidence in the shape of Ex.PA to Ex.PL. The statements of the appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C, were recorded, wherein they refuted the allegations levelled against than and professed their innocence.
5. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 02.10.2018, found the appellants guilty , convicted and sentenced them as mentioned and detailed above, hence the instant appeal.
6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are absolutely innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant being in league with the local police; that the prosecution eye-witnesses have admitted that they were annoyed with Shehar-Y ar (deceased), due to his love marriage with Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) and they also admitted that they were residents of a city, which was situated at a distance of 35 kilometers away from the place of occurrence, therefore, their presence at the spot at the relevant time was neither probable nor natural; that the prosecution eye-witnesses were chance witnesses and they could not establish the reason of their presence at the spot at the time of occurrence through any plausible/independent evidence therefore, their evidence is not worthy of reliance; that there is delay of about 12 hours in conducting postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, which has further created doubt in the prosecution case; that there is nothing on the record to show that Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) had any litigation with Shehar-Y ar (deceased), prior to the occurrence, therefore, the motiv e as alleged by the prosecution could not be proved in this case; that the alleged recoveries of "Churri" and "Roras" (pieces of bricks), from the appellants have been planted against them by the prosecution because Zeeshan (PW-9), has himself admitted that the appellants threw away "Churri" and "Rora" (piece of brick), at the spot, at the time of occurrence but even then the said recoveries have been shown to be effected on the pointation of the appellants at a later stage of the case; that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of doubt, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellants may be accepted and the appellants may be acquitted from the charges.
7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant contends that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellants beyond the shadow of any doubt, therefore, they were rightly found guilty by the learned trial Court; that the appellants could not establish any mala fide on the part of the prosecution for their false involvement in this case; that the roles attributed to the appellants of inflicting 'Rora. blows on the head and body of Shehar-Y ar (deceased), have fully' been supported by the medical evidence; that the prosecution eye-witnesses stood the test of lengt hy cross-examination but their evidence could not be shaken; that presence of the prosecution eye-witnesses in the house of their son/brother at the time of occurrence is quite natural and probable; that the prosecution case against the appellants has further been corroborated by the recoveries of blood stained "Churri" and "Roras" (pieces of bricks), on the pointation of the appellants, as well as, through the report of Punjab Forensic Science Agency , Lahore (Ex.PL), which shows that "Churri" and "Roras" (pieces of bricks) recovered from the possession of the appellants were found to be stained with human blood; that minor contradictions in the prosecution evidence regarding the above-mentioned recoveries are immaterial because the statement of Zeeshan (PW-9), was recorded with a considerable delay from the date of occurrence, therefore, no benefit could be extended to the appellants on the basis of minor variation in his statement qua the recoveries of weapons of offence; that there is no substance in this appeal, therefore, the same may be dismissed.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, as well as, the learned Deputy Prosecutor .
General and have also gone through the evidence available on the record with their able assistance.
9. The detail of the prosecution case as set forth in the complainant (Ex.PD/1) on the basis of which the formal FIR (Ex.PD) was chalked out has already been given in Para No.3 of this judgment, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same.
10. As per prosecution case, the occurrence in this case took place on the 07.05.2017 at 08:30 p.m. Relevant column of the FIR (Ex.PD) shows that the FIR was statedly lodged on 07.05.201 7 at 11.15 p. m. , however , it is noteworthy that postmortem examinatio n on the dead body of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) was conducted on 08.05.2017 at 08:30 a.m. i.e. with the delay of twelve hours from the time of alleged occurrence. Dr. Muhammad Imtiaz (PW-5) stated during his examination-in-chief that the dead body was received in the dead house on 07.05.2017 at 11.00 p.m. and he received police papers on 08.05.2017 at 07.45 a.m. Relevant part of his statement in this respect reads as under:- "Dead body was received in dead house on 07.05.2017 at 11.00 p.m and I received relevant police papers at about 07.45 a.m. on 08.05.2017. I conducted autopsy at 08.30 a.m. on 08.05.2017"
He further stated during his cross-exam ination that a Doctor remains on duty round the clock in the Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Bhalwal. Relevant part of his statement in this respect reads as under:- "A doctor remains at duty in THQ Hospital, Bhalwal round the clock".
Under the circumstances, it is evident that there was no delay on the part of the Medical Officer to conduct postmortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased because the police papers were handed over to him with a considerable delay of about eleven (11) hours from the time of occurrence and thereafter , postmortem examination on the dead body of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) was conducted. The abovementioned delay in conducting the postmortem examination on the dead body of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) is suggestive of the fact that no eye- witness was present at the spot at the relevant time and the abovementioned delay has been consumed in procuring the attendance of fake eye-witnesses. In the case of "Khalid alias Khalidi and 2 others v. The State" (2012 SCMR 327), it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that delay of ten hours in conducting post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased clearly shows that the FIR was not lodged at the given time and it was concluded that the said delay coupled with other facts has created doubt in the prosecution story . Relevant part of the judgment at page No.332 reads as under:- ".........................The incident in the instant case took place at 2.00 a.m., FIR was recorded at 4/5 a. m, Dr. Muhammad Pervaiz medically examine d the injured persons at 4.00 a.m. but conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased at 3.00 p.m i.e., after about ten hours which fact clearly shows that the FIR was not lodged at the given time..........................."
Likewise, in the case of 'Muhammad Ilyas v. Muhammad Abid alias Billa and others' (2017 SCMR 54), the Apex Court of the country was pleased to observe that delay of 09 hours in conducting the postmortem examination suggests that the prosecution eye-witnesses were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence therefore, the said delay was used in procuring the attendance of fake eye-witnesses. Relevant part of the judgment at page No. 55 reads as under:- "2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record of the case with his assistance we have observed that in the Inquest Report no time of death had been recorded which indicated that till preparation of the Inquest Report the FIR had not been registered. Post-mortem Examination of the dead body of Muhammad Shahbaz deceased had been conducted after nine hours of the incident which again was a factor pointing towards a possibility that lime had been consumed by the local police and the complainant party in procuring and planting eye-witnesses and cooking up a story for the prosecution. ..."
Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of 'Zafar v. The State and others'
(2018 SCMR 326), "Muhammad Ashraf v. The State" (2012 SCMR 419) and Irshad Ahmed v. The State' (2011 SCMR 1 190).
11. The ocular account of the prosecution has been furnished by Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW-8) and Zeeshan (PW-9). The occurrence in this case took place in the house of Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant), who was wife of Shehar-Y ar (deceased), which was situated at Ashraf Colony , Bhalwal. Muhamm ad Riaz complainant (PW-8), is father and Zeeshan (PW-9), is brother of Shehar-Y ar (deceased). Both the abovementioned prosecution eye- witnesses were residents of Reman Pura, Sargodha. Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW-8), has admitted that he, as well as, Zeeshan (PW-9), were residents of Reman Pura, Sargodha, which was situated at a distance of 35- Kilometers away from Ashraf Colony , Bhalwal, where the occurrence took place. Relevant part of his statement in this respect reads as under:- "It is correct that Shehbaz and Zeeshan PWs are my real sons. Latif PW is my neighbourer while Ikram PW is my nephew . We all abovementioned reside in Reman Pura, Sargodha at a distance of 35 kilometers away from Bhalwal"
The abovementioned prosecution eye-wit nesses being residents of a different city are chance witnesses because in the normal course of nature, they were supposed to be present in their house situated at Reman Pura, Sargodha, which was 35-kilometers away from Ashraf Colony , Bhalwal, where the occurrence took place. In order to justify their presence at the spot, both the abovementioned eye-witnesses stated that on the day of occurrence i.e., on 07.05.2017, Shehar-Y ar (deceased) made a phone call to his father Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW-8), whereupon they (PWs) came to the house, where the occurrence took place. However , it is noteworthy that the prosecution evidence in this respect is self-contradictory because Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW-9), stated in his examination-in-chief that he received telephone call from his son name ly Shehar-Y ar (deceased) on 07.05.2017, whereupon he along with other PWs reached at the spot and witnessed the occurrence but during his cross-examination, he stated that Shehar Yar (deceased) made telephone call two days prior to the occurrence.
Relevant parts of his statement read as under:- Statement during examination-in-chief.
"After receiving telephonic call from my son, on 07.05.2017, 1 along with Muhammad Shehbaz and Zeeshan came at the house of my son Shehar Yar deceased in Ashraf Colony , Bhalwal at about 08.30 p.m"
Statement during cross- examination.
"Shehar Yar deceased made a telephonic call two days prior of this occurrence"
It is further noteworthy that neither any telephone number of the complainant nor any telephone number of Shehar- Yar (deceased) has been brought on the record during entire prosecution evidenc e. Moreover , no call data of the telephone numbers of the complainant and the deceased has been produced in prosecution evidence to establish the abovementioned reason of presence of prosecution eye-witnesses at the spot at the time of occurrence. I have also noted that even according to the prosecution's own case, Shehar-Y ar (dece ased) contracted love marriage with Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant), without the consent of the complainant party , due to which the complainant party was unhappy with Shehar-Y ar (deceased). The statements made by Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW-8) and Zeeshan (PW -9), in this respect are reproduced hereunder:- Statement of Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW -8).
"Shehar Yar deceased and Gul Fishan accused entered into wedlock on the basis of love marriage without our consent".
Statement of Zeeshan (PW -9).
Shehar Yar entered into a love marriage against our consent and due to this reason we were unhappy with him".
In the light of above, it is evident that the complainant party was unhappy with Shehar-Y ar (deceased), who was living in the house of his mother-in-law at Ashraf Colony , Bhalwal, therefore, it was mandatory for the prosecution to establish through any independent evidence like call data of phone numbers of the complainant and Sheher-Y ar (deceased) that in fact any call was received by the day of occurrence to justify the abovementioned reason of presence of the prosecution eye-witnesses at the time of occurrence in a different city but no such evidence has been produced by the prosecution, therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution eye-witnesses are chance witnesses and they could not justify their presence at the spot at the relevant time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Mst. SuRhra Begum and another v. Oaiser Pervez and others" (2015 SCMR 1142) at Para No.14, observed regarding the chance witnesses as under:- "14. A chance witness, in legal parlance is the one who claims that he was presen t on the crime spot at the fateful time, albeit, his presence there was a sheer chance as in the ordinary course of business, place of residence and normal course of events, he was not supposed to be present on the spot but at a place where he resides, carries on business or runs day to day life affairs. It is in this context that the testimony of chance witness, ordinarily , is not accepted unless justifiable reasons are shown to establish his presence at the crime scene at the relevant time. In normal course, the presumption under the law would operate about his absence from the crime spot. True that in rare cases, the testimony of chance witness may be relied upon, provided some convincing explanations appealing to prudent mind for his presence on the crime spot are put forth, when the occur rence took place, otherwise, his testimony would fall within the category of suspect evidence and cannot be accepted without a pinch of salt."
Similar view was taken in the case of "Muhammad Irshad v. Allah Ditta and others" (2017 SCMR 142). Relevant part of the said judgment at Para No.2 reads as under:- Muhammad Irshad complainant (PW8) and Rab Nawaz (PW9) were chance witnesses and the stated reason for their presence with the deceased at the relevant time had never been established before the trial court through any independent evidence..."
I have also noted that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution eye-witnesses.
Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW-8), stated that mother of Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) was living in the house, where the occurrence took place but she was not present in the said house at the time of occurrence, whereas Zeeshan (PW-8), stated that mother of Gul Fishan (appellant) was present in the house at the time of occurrence.
Relevant parts of statements of the abovementioned prosecution eye-witnesses in this respect are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- Statement of Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW -8).
"Gul Fishan accused along with her mother were residing jointly in a house which is the place of occurrence. The mother of Gul Fishan accused was not present in the house at that time".
Statement of Zeeshan (PW -9).
"The mother of Gul Fishan accused was also residing with them. The mother of Gul Fishan accused was present in this house at the time of occurrence".
'Churries', one in the hand of Nasir Abbas (appellant) and the other beneath the bed of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) as stated during his cross-examination by Zeeshan (PW-9). However , it is evident from the perusal of evidence of Zeeshan (PW-9) that 'Churri' and 'Rora' (piece of brick), which were statedly in possession of the appellants were thrown at the spot, meaning thereby that the appellants became empty handed after throwing their weapons of offence at the spot. It is
12. It is further noteworthy that the prosecution story does not appeal to a prudent mind and even the conduct of the prosecution eye-witnesses is highly un-natural. According to the prosecution case Nasir Abbas appellant was holding a "Churri " in his hand at the time of occurrence but both the appellants committed murder of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) with the help of 'Roras' (pieces of bricks). It is not understandable that if Nasir Abbas appellant was carrying a "Churri" at the time of occurren ce then as to why he did not use the said "Churri " and instead committed the murder of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) with the help of a 'Rora' (piece of brick). As per prosecution case Nasir Abbas (appellant) merely put the "Churri " on the neck of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) and Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) inflicted blows of Roras' (pieces of bricks) on the head of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) and thereafter Nasir Abbas (appellant) took a 'Rora' (piece of brick) from Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) and inflicted a blow on the head of Shehar-Y ar (deceased). However , "Churri " was surprisingly not used by Nasir Abbas appellant or Mst. Gul Fishan (appellant) to commit the occurrence. It is not understandable that as to why Nasir Abbas appellant did not use "Churri " at the time of occurrence to commit the murder of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) though he allegedly used the said "Churri " to threaten the PWs. It is further noteworthy that the complainant party was comprising of four adult male members namely Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW-8), Zeeshan (PW-9), Muhammad Shehbaz (PW since given-up) and Shehar-Y ar (deceased), whereas the accused party was comprising of only two persons namely Nasir Abbas (appellant) and Mst. Gul Fishan (appella nt), out of whom one was a female. Zeeshan (PW-9), stated during his cross-examination that the accused persons threw away Churri" and 'Rora' (piece of brick) on the spot, which were later on taken into possession by the police from the place of occurrence. Relevan t part of his statement reads as under: "The accused persons thrown away "Churri" and "Roras" in our presence. The police himself took into possession "Churri" and "Roras" allegedly used by the accused from the place of occurrence in our presence. There were two Churries one was in the hand of accused Nasir Abbas, the other was lying benea th the bed on which Shehar Yar was murdered. The "Rora" was also lying on the floor beneath the bed. The police recovered one "Churri" and one "Rora" in our presence"
There is no allegation in the FIR (Ex.PD ) or in the statement of Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW-8) that there were two therefore, not understandable that if the, appellants threw away 'Churri ' and 'Rora' (piece of brick) at the spot, then as to why the complainant party , which was still comprising of three male adult members at that time, did not try to apprehend the appellants. Even Mst. Gul Fishan appellant being a female was not apprehended at the spot by the abovementioned prosecution eye- witnesses. It is also noteworthy that according to the postmortem report of the deceased, there were as many as thirteen (13) injuries on his body . All the said injuries were caused by blunt weapon. The infliction of large number of injuries on the deceased must have consumed reasonable time but the prosecution eye-witnesses neither tried to rescue their real son/brother at the time of occurrence nor they tried to apprehend the appellants even when they (appellants) threw away "Churri " and 'Rora ' (piece of brick) at the spot and they became empty handed. They (prosecution witnesses) saw the entire occurrence like silent spectators. The abovementioned conduct of the prosecution eye-witnesses is highly un-natural, therefore, their evidence is not worthy of reliance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of "Liaquat Ali v. The State" (2008 SCMR 95 ) at Para No.7, observed regarding conduct of the witnesses of ocular account as under:-- "2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that on the fateful day at about 8.00 a.m. complainant Shameer (P. W. 7) was going to the "Lumberdar" (Revenue Officer) to pay "Abyana" and at that time his cousin namely Fazil deceased was going ahead of him at some distance. Suddenly within his view Liaquat Ali appellant armed with a knife appeared and raised a Lalkara that Fazil would not be spared and thereafter gave him successive knife blows on various parts of his body . On hue and cries raised, Muhammad Siddique (P. W.8), Ranjha and Musa (not produced) were attracted to the spot. They tried to rescue Fazil but on being threatened by Liaquat they were unable to protect Fazil deceased and within their view he succumbed to the injuries and died......................
3. ..............................................
4. ..............................................
5. ............................................
5-A. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, we note that although P. W. 7 who is first cousin and brother -in-law of Fazil deceased claims to have seen the occurrence from a distance of 30 ft. (as given in cross-examination) and two other witnesses namely Musa and Ranjha were also attracted to the spot but none rescued Fazil deceased and appellant had a free hand to inflict as many as 9 injuries on his person. The explanation given by these witnesses that since Liaquat Ali had threatened them, therefore, they could not go near Fazil deceased to rescue him is repellant to common sense as Liaqat Ali was not armed fire- arm which could have scared the witnesses away . He was a single alleged assailant and if the witnesses were there at the spot they could have easily Likewise, in the case of "Pathan v. The State" (2015 SCMR 315) at Para No.4, the Apex Court of the country was pleased to observe as under:- The appellant was armed only with scissors not a formidable weapon of destruction. The complainant is the son of the deceased while Baradi and the other PW Muhammad Yousaf are also related to the deceased. The causing of such large number of injuries one after another to the deceased with scissors must have consumed reasonable time due to the pause in between the first injury and the last one but all the three PWs including the son with a strong stature and built remain as silent spectators. They did not react or showed any response when the accused was causing the injuries. No man on the earth would believe that a close relative would remain silent spectator in a situation like this because their intervention was very natural to rescue the deceased but they did nothing nor attempted to chase the accused and apprehend him at the spot. "
Similar view was taken in the case of "Zafar v . The State and others" (2018 SCMR 326 ).
13. The prosecution evidence against the appellants regarding recoveries of 'Churri ' and 'Rora ' (piece of brick) from Nasir Abbas appellant and 'Rota' (piece of brick) from Mst. Gul Fishan appellant is also highly contradictory and unreliable. As per statement of Khalid Hayat SI (PW-11), the blood stained 'Rora' (piece of brick) was recovered on the pointation of Mst. Gul Fishan appellant on 13.05.2017, whereas 'Churri ' and 'Rota' (piece of brick) were recovered on the pointation of Nasir Abbas appellant on 21.05.2017 but as mentioned earlier , according to the statement of Zeeshan (PW-9), "Churri " and 'Rora ' (piece of brick) were thrown away by the appellants at the spot on the day of occurrence i.e:, on 07.05.20 17 and the same were taken into posses sion by the police from the spot on the said day. Relevant part of the statement of Zeeshan (PW-9), in this respect has already been reproduced in paragraph No.12, above. Under the circumstances, the prosecution evidence qua recovery of "Churri " and 'Rora ' (piece of brick) from Nasir Abbas appellant and 'Rora' (piece of brick) from Mst. Gul Fishan appellant is not worthy of reliance.
14. According to the prosecution case, the motive behind the occurrence was that about 11/2 months prior to the occurrence Mst. Gul Fishan and Nasir Abbas appellants had established illicit relations with each other due to which a dispute arose between Shehar-Y ar (deceased) and Mst. Gul Fishan appellant and because of the said grudge, the appellants committed the murder of Shehar-Y ar (deceased). Admittedly Mst. Gul Fishan appellant was living with Shehar-Y ar (deceased) till the date of occurrence. Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW-8) and Zeeshan (PW-9), did not mention the date, time and place of the quarrel, which allegedly took place between Shehar-Y ar (deceased) and Mst. Gul Fishan appe llant on account of the abovementio ned reason. Muhammad Riaz complainant (PW-8), has conceded during his cross-examination that no litigation was pending between Shehar- Yar (deceased) and Mst. Gul Fishan appellant in any Court prior to the occurrence . Relevant part of his statement in this respect reads as under:- "No dispute prior to this occurrence was pending. in any Court between Gul Fishan accused and Shehar Yar deceased" As mentioned earlier , the complainant party was unhappy on account of love marriage of Shehar-Y ar (deceased) with Mst. Gul Fishan appellant, therefore, Shehar-Y ar (deceased) along with Mst. Gul Fishan appellant was living in the house of his mother-in-law in city Bhalwal, whereas the prosecution witnesses were residents of Sargodha City which is a different city and as such there was no chance for the prosecution witnesses to see the appellants in any objectionable condition so that it may be presumed that there was any illicit relatio nship between them. None from the prosecution witnesses stated that he had seen the appellants in any objectionable condition. I am, therefore, of the view that the motive as alleged by the prosecution could not be proved in this case.
15. Insofar as the medical evidence of the prosecution is concerned, it is by now well settled that medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the prosecution version with N regard to receipt of injury , nature of the injury , kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not identify the assailant.
Reference in this context may be made to the cases of 'Muhammad Tasaweer v. Hafiz Zulkarnain and 2 others'
(PLD 2009 SC 53 ), Altaf Hussain v . Fakhar Hussain and another' (2008 SCMR 1 103) and 'Mursal Kazmi alias Qamar Shah and another v . The State' (2009 SCMR 1410 ).
16. I have considered all the aspects of this case and have come to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution evidence is full of doubts. It is by now well settled that if there is a single circums tance which creates reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubts about the truthfulness of the prosecution story . In 'Tariq Pervez v. The State' (1995 SCMR 1345 ), the Hon'ble. Supreme Court of Pakistan , at page 1347, was pleased to. Observe as under:- "5. The concept of benefit of doubt to an accused person is deep-rooted in our country . For giving him benefit of doubt, it is not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is a circumstance which creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused will be entitled to the benefit not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
The apex Court of the country while reiterating the same principle in the case of "Muhammad Akram v. The State" (2009 SCMR 230 ), at page 236, observed as under:-- "13.... ....It is an axiomatic principle of law that in case of doubt, the benefit thereof must accrue in favour of the accused as matter of right and not of grace. It was observed by this Court in the case of Tariq Pervez v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 that for giving the benefit of doubt, it was not necessary that there should be many circumstances creating doubts. If there is circumstance which created reasonable doubt in a prudent mind about the guilt of the accused, then the accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt not as a matter of grace and concession but as a matter of right."
Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as "Muhammad Mansha v. The State" (2018 SCMR 772 ).
17. In the light of above discussion, I accept Criminal Appeal No.257189-J of 2018 filed by Nasir Abbas and Mst.
Gul Fishan (appellants), set aside their convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha vide impugned judgment dated 02.10.2018 and acquit them of the charge under sections 302(b)/34, P.P.C. by extending them the benefit of doubt. Nasir Abbas and Mst. Gui Fishan (appellants) are in custody , they be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.