LEHRAHAP KHAN, Muhammad Ashraf, aged 20 years, Sarwar aged 35 years, (3) Akbar aged 23 years and (4) Anwar aged 34 years, sons of Noor Muhammad and Karam Din aged 65 years son of Nawab Din were tried by the learned sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, under 302/149 and 148 the learned sections 30x/149 and P. P. C. For murder Ali, deceased, son of Ch. Sardar Muhammad on 28thApril1974 at 8.15 am within the area of Chowk Mohallah churigaran, Sheikhupura.
2. The learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 4th November, 1976 acquitted all of them extending benefit of doubt to them.
3. The State has filed the present appeal (Criminal Appeal No319 of 1977) challenging the acquittal of the aforementioned respondents and seeking that the judgment dated 4th November, .1976 learned Sessions Judge passed by the be set aside and the respondents may be convicted according to law.
4. Taj Din complainant has also filed Criminal Revision under section, 439, Cr. P. C. Challenging the aforesaid judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and requesting for re-trial. The appeal against the acquittal as well as the criminal revision shall be disposed of by this judgment.
5. Briefly stated the allegations against the respondents as transpire from the contents of the F.
1. R.
(Exh. P. B.) are that on 28th April, 1974 engagement ceremony of Mst. Inayat Begum daughter of Sardar Muhammad caste Arain resident of Mohallah, Churigaran Sheikhupura was to take place.
The said Sardar Muhammad is related to Taj Din complainant, and his brother Muhammad Ali, deceased. Taj Din complainant (P. W.11), Muhammad Ali, deceased, Muhammad Ibrahim son of Allah Bakhsh (p. W. 13) and Muhammad Sharif son of Yar Muhammad (P. W. 12) came from Basti Araianwala to participate in the aforementioned engage--ments. When they reached Chowk Churigaran on Bhikhi Road, at about 8.15 a. m. That suddenly the respondents who were all armed with chhuris emerged at the scene. They opened attack on Muhammad Ali, deceased and caused injuries to the said deceased with their respective chhuris. Muhammad Ali died of these injuries at the spot. The respondents threatened Yaqoob etc. That if any one of them dared to come forward he would be dealt with in the same manner. Taj Din, Muhammad Ibrahim and Muhammad Sharif did not go forward on account of fear but they witnessed the occurrence. They however, raised alarm as a result whereof the respondents decamped from the scene of occurrence.
6. As regards motive it is stated that about two years prior to this occurrence Muhammad Ali, deceased, alongwith Allah Bakhsh, etc five persons had murdered Noora Bloch, father of Muhammad Ashraf, Sarwar, Akbar and Anwar, respondents. In the said murder case of Noora, Muhammad Ali and five others stood the trial but were acquitted on 18th March, 1974, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. The respondents thus harboured grudge against Muhammad Ali, deceased, and others and in order to avenge their grievance, they murdered Muhammad Ali.
7. Taj Din deputed Muhammad Sharif and Hassan Din to guard the dead body of Muhammad Ali deceased and himself went to the Police Station City Sheikhupura, at a distance of 1 I miles from the place of occurrence and lodged the F. I. R. Exh. P. B. At 8.45 a. m. On the same day. The F. I. R.
Was recorded by Zahoor Ahmad (P. W. 14) the then S. I.-S. H. O. Police Station City, Sheikhupura.
8. After recording the F. I. R. Zaboor Ahmad went to the place of occurrence. He collected the blood- stained earth vide Memo. Exh. P. D. And made the same into a sealed parcel. He took into possession a pair of shoes of the deceased P. 2/1-2, vide Memo. Exh. P. C. He pre--pared inquest report Exh. P. Q. In respect of the dead body of the deceased, Muhammad Ali, and despatched the dead body for post-mortem to the mortuary, through Din Muhammad Foot Constable. After autopsy, Din Muhammad produced the last worn clothes of the deceased which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. J.
(9) On the same day i. e. On 28th April, 1975 Zahoor Ahmad arrested Ashraf, respondent, and on his personal search he recovered key P. 3 which was taken into possession vide Memo. Exh. P. E. Ashraf led to the recovery of chhuri P. 7 (blood-stained) from an iron petti lying in his house.Ehhuri was taken into possession vide memo Exh. P.H and sealed into a parcel. Ashraf, respondent, was wearing blood-stained clothes P. 4 and P. 5 at the time of his arrest which were removed from his person and taken into possession, vide memo. Exh. P. F. The same were also made into a sealed parcel.
10. On 28th April, 1974 Karam Din, respondent was arrested and he led to the recovery of chhuri P. l f on 3rd May, 1974 from an earthen bin lying in his house. The chhuri was taken in possession wide memo. Exh. P. K. On 3rd May, 1974 Akbar, respondent, led to the recovery of chhuri P. 12 from an earthen bin lying in his house. The chhuri was taken into possession, vide memo. Exh. P. L. On 13th May, 1974 Anwar, respondent led to the recovery of chhuri P. 1 from the graveyard of Sain Bhoori wala in the area of village Jewanpura.
11. Medical Evidence x x x x x x x x in the opinion of Dr. Anwar Mohy-ud-Din Chaudhry these injuries were anti-mortem and were caused by sharp-edged weapon. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were grevious in nature while injury No, 3 was simple. Injuries 2, 4 and 5 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively. Death has been caused as a result of severe haemorrhage and cutting of neck blood vessel (big) shock and by cutting of trachea:
12. It transpires from the above narration of the prosecution version that the case against the respondents rests on-
(i) ocular evidence
(ii) recovery; and
(iii) medical evidence.
13. As regards motive it may be observed that it is. a common ground between the parties that previously Noora, father of Ashraf, Sarwar, Akbar and Anwar, respondents was murdered. In that case Muhammad Ali, deceased and five others were sent up to stand trial but were ultimately acquitted. In these circumstances the respondents on the one hand had a motive to avenge the murder of their father while the complainant party had the motive to cause harm to the respondents, and to involve them in a murder case as they had previously involved the members of the complainant party including the deceased in the murder case. Thus in the present case the motive works on either side. It is however, established that there is deep-rooted enmity between the complainant party on the one hand and the respondents on the other.
14. Tai Din (P. W. 11) and Muhammad Sharif (P. W. 12) and Muhammad Ibrahim (P. W. 13) have been examined at the trial as eye--witnesses. Taj Din is the real brother of Muhammad Ali, deceased, while Muhammad Sharif is the father-in-law of said deceased Muhammad Ibrahim is the sister's son of Muhammad Ali, deceased. He has admitted that his father Allah Baksh and his brother Ismail, were involved as accused in the previous murder case of Noora, father of Ashraf, Sarwar.
Akbar and Anwar respondents. These eye-witnesses are thus highly interested being close relations of the deceased and at the same time they are inimical towards the respondents bitterly on account of the previous murder case of Noora. In case of such witnesses, Courts have always insisted upon independent corroboration. .
15. As regards corroboration, medical evidence furnishes corroboration to this extent only that Muhammad Ali, deceased, died of injuries, which were caused by sharp-edged weapon and were on the right side of his body. The possibility of five injuries noted as a result of autopsy having been caused by 1 or 2 assailants cannot -be excluded. There x hardly any justification for the proposition that since the number o injuries found on the person of the deceased's body is five, therefore, these injuries were caused by five assailants.
16. But for the above support no corroboration is provided by the medical evidence to the ocular evidence.
17. As regards recoveries of the chhur is alleged to have been recov--ered from Sarwar, Akbar, Anwar and Karam Din the same were not blood stained. No reliance can, therefore, be placed on these recoveries because chhuris alleged to have been recovered from these respondents, being not blood-stained cannot be connected with the offence. Moreover these reco--veries were made after a pretty long time of the occurrence.
18. Recovery of chhuri P. 7 (blood-stained) is alleged to have been made on the same day when the occurrence took place, from Muhammad Ashraf respondent. It is also alleged that the blood- stained clothes P. 4 and P. 5 were also got removed from the person of Muhammad Ashraf at the time of his arrest from his house. The blood-stained chhuri has been recovered from Ashraf through memo. Exh. P. H. While blood-- stained clothes were taken from his person vide memo. Exh.
P. F. These memos have been attested by Muhammad Sadiq (P. W. 8) and Muhammad Ibrahim (P.W. 13) besides the Investigating Officer namely, Zahoor Ahmad(P. W. 14). Zahoor Ahmad has claimed that he arrested Ashraf accused from his house on the day of occurrence, i. e. 24th April 1974 when Sadiq and Ibrahim P. Ws. Were also with him and at the same time he led to the recovery of blood-stained chhuri P. 7 from an iron petti lying in his house and that at the time of his arrest he was wearing blood-- stained clothes P. 4 and P. 5 which were got removed from his person and taken into possession. Muhammad Sadiq (P. W. 8) who is one of the attesting witnesses has, however, stated that he reached the spot at about 8.30 a. m. Ashraf accused had not been arrested in his presence. He was already under arrest when he reached the spot. Muhammad Sadiq did not remember the names of the persons present there. He did not remember the colours of the shirt and shalwar alleged to have been taken off the person of Ashraf at the time of his arrest. This witness is the paternal cousin of the deceased. Muhammad Ibrahim deposed that he did not know as to from where Ashraf respondent was arrested by police. He stated that he only saw Ashraf with the police at the spot at noon. Accor--ding to him large number of people had already gathered there. He saw Ashraf, respondent, at the spot for the first time under arrest of police and it was at about 3.00 p. m. When clothes were removed from Ashraf's person and the key was taken into possession. The house of Ashraf is in Mohallah Churigran. Mabammad Ibrahim has stated that it was a big Mohallah but nobody from the neighbouring houses was made to witness the recovery, and the arrest of Ashraf. Muhammad Ibrahim as already noticed is the sister's son of the deceased. His father and brother remained involved in the murder case of Noora, the father of Ashraf etc., respondents.
19. In view of the material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of recovery who are not only close relations of the decease but or also bitterly inimical towards the respondents no value can be attached to the recovery of the blood-stained ehhuri and blood-stained clothes from Muhammad Ashraf, respondent. As a matter of fact the evidence of recovery suffers from the same kind of infirmity from which the ocular evidence suffers, and therefore, this does not furnish independent corroboration to the ocular evidence.
20. In the light of above observations we find that the learned trial Judge was justified in concluding that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt to the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. In this view c of the matter no exception can be taken to the impugned order of acquittal recorded by him.
21. The under consideration appeal and the Criminal Revision therefore fail and are accordingly dismissed.
S. G. D. Appeal against acquittal dismissed.