' F. I. R. (Exh. P. H./1) was registered at Police Station Dina on 7th April, 1975 at 12-25 p.m. By Muhammad Sharif, A. S. I. (P. W. 10), on receipt of statement (Exh. P. H.) of Abdul Hakim (not produced at the trial because of his having died before the trial), recorded by Zafar Mahmood, A. S.-I. (P. W. 11), at 12-10 p.m. On the same day at Bus Stand, Dina.
2. According to the F. I. R., Abdul Hakim, informant, a neighbour of Mst. Gaman Bibi deceased, on hearing alarm of Mst. Gaman, went to her house at 10-30 a.m. On 7th April, 1975. He saw Inayat Masih inflicting knife blows to Mst. Gaman. When the informant tried to stop him, he (Inayat) threatened him. The noise attracted Riaz Rasul, P. W. And some other persons to the spot, who also saw Inayat Maish giving knife blows to Mst.
Gaman. Whereafter he ran away. It is mentioned in the F. I. R. That after the occurrence, relatives of Mst.
Gaman reached the spot, who shifted her to Jhelum hospital.
4. Zafar Mahmood, A. S. I., after despatching the statement (Exh. P. H.) to the police station, for registration of the case, proceeded to civil hospital, Jhelum, where he learnt that Mst. Gaman had already expired.
' After preparing the injury statement (Exh. P. K.) and inquest report (Exh. P. L.), be entrusted the dead body to Muhammad Iqbal, F. C. For post-mortem examination. Vest (P. 5), shalwar P. 6) and shirt (P. 7), WI bloodstained, of the deceased, which were produced before him (A. S.-I.) in the hospital, were taken into posssession vide memo. Exh. P. J. The A. S.-I. Then proceeded to the spot wherefrom he collected blood- stained earth and took the same into possession vide memo. Exh. P. A. Inayat Masih was arrested by him during the night between 7th/8th April, 1975. The A. S.-I. Prepared injury statement (Exh. P. E.) about the injury on the left ring-finger of Inayat Masih. The A. S.-I. Got the accused medically examined by Dr. Muhammad Arshad Awan, who appeared at the trial as P. W.
6. The doctor noted an incised wound 3/4" x 1/16" x skin deep, on the terminal phalynx of the left ring-finger.
The injury was declared simple and was found to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon.
' On 13th April, 1975 Inayat Masih led to the recovery of bloodstained knife (P. 1), which was taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh. P. B. The memo. Was attested by Abdul Majid (P. W. 2) and Taj Din (P. W.
5), in addition to Zafar Mahmood, A. S. I. (P. W. 11).
4. Lady Dr. Miss Taj Bibi (P.W. 3), on 7th April, 1975 had medically examined Mst. Gaman during her lifetime.
She noted the following injuries on her person :-
(1) An incised wound, 3/4" x 1/8" x peritoneal cavity deep, on the epigastrium 1" below the sternum.
(2) An incised wound 11' x 1/4" x peritoneal cavity deep, on the right side of the epigastrium 1-1 below injury No, 1.
(3) An incised wound, 11" x }" X chest cavity on the right side of chest 11" above the costal margin.
(4) An incised wound, 1 x 1/2" x peritoneal cavity on the left side of the abdomen, just below the costal margin, three inches from the middle line.
(5) An incised wound x 1" x 3/4" on the upper part of left thigh, below iliac crest.
(6) An incised wound, 11" x 1 t" x peritoneal cavity deep, right side of abdomen lower part. (Loops of the intestines were outside of the wound).
(7) An incised wound, 3/4" X 1/4" on the left breast 1/2' above the nipple.
(8) A incised wound, 1" x I/2" x 1" on the back of left chest at the lower part.
(9) An incised wound, 3/4" x 1/4" x peritoneal cavity on the left side of the abdomen 1-i" above the iliac crest.
' Injury No, 5 was declared simple, while the rest were opined to be grievous and dangerous to life. According to the doctor all the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon.
5. The autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Gaman was conducted by Dr. Fida Husain, M. C. Civil Hospital, Jhelum on 7th April, 1975 at 5 p.m. On report having been received about Dr. Fida Husain having left the country, prosecution was allowed to prove the post-mortem report by secondary evidence. Lady Dr. Miss Taj Bibi (P. W. 3), who was well-versed with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Fida Husain was allowed to prove post-mortem report (Exh. P. D.).
Dr. Fida Husain at the time of post-mortem had also noted 9 incised wounds on the dead body of the deceased.
The injuries noted by Dr. Fida Husain in the post-mortem report tallied with the injuries noted by Lady Dr. Miss Taj Bibi. According to the opinion of Dr. Fida Husain, the deceased died as a result of shock and haemorrhage, due to injuries Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7. These injuries have been noted above.
6. At the trial, prosecution in all examined eleven witnesses. Eyewitness account was deposed by Abdul Majid (P. W. 2), Riaz Rasul (P. W. 4) and Taj Din (P. W. 5). Taj Din and Abdul Majid P. Ws. Have also deposed about Inayat Masih having got recovered blood-stained knife (P. 1) from his house on 13th April, 1975. Zafar Mamood, A. S.-I. (P. W. 11) has given details of the investigation.
7. The learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum, vide order, dated 18th February, 1977 held Inayat Masih guilty of having murdered Msr. Gaman. He was convicted under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
' The convict has filed appeal.
8. Abdul Hakim, at whose instance F.
1. R. Was registered, was not produced at the trial as he was reported to have died before the trial. Out of three other witnesses, i.e. P. W. 2, P. W. 4 and P. W. 5, examined for eye-witness account, Riaz Rasul (P. W. 4) and Taj Din (P. W. 5) have not stated the fact of having seen the appellant causing injuries to the deceased. Both have stated that they had seen the deceased lying in an injured condition in the verandah of her house and the appellant was standing nearby with the knife. Abdul Majid (P. W. 2) has stated that he had reached the spot on hearing noise and had seen the appellant giving knife blows to the deceased. While giving details of injuries, he stated that, "one or two blows were also given to her in my view." He was not able to give the seats of injuries inflicted by the appellant in his presence.
9. The learned trial Court has placed reliance on the eye-witnesses and the evidence of recovery of weapon of offence. The learned trial Court has given a clear finding that the statement (Exh. P. H.) of Abdul Hakim, which formed the basis of registration of F. I. R., was not recorded at the Bus Stand and that in fact the A. S.-I. Had recorded the statement of Abdul Hakim after having removed the deceased in an injured condition to Jhelum hospital and after having returned to the spot from Jhelum after the expiry of Mst. Gaman. It has been clearly held by the trial Court that the statement (Exh. P. H.) was recorded at the spot after preliminary investigations. In this view of the matter and also keeping in view the fact that the complainant could not be examined because of his death, no reliance can be placed on the contents of the F. I. R.
10. The appellant during his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. Denied the charge of either having inflicted injuries to Mst. Gaman or having got recovered the knife (P. 1). In reply to the question, why this case against him, he stated :- "Riaz P. W. Had asked me to sweep his Haveli and I refused. Mst. Gaman Bi was injured by Riaz P. W. Perhaps and thrown at our house. I have been falsely involved in this case."
' He did not opt to produce defence.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has failed to produce any evidence of the motive, that it was an unwitnessed occurrence, that the P. Ws. Examined for deposing the eye-witness account were not neighbours of the deceased and as such, they were chance witnesses, that the evidence of recovery of knife has also been deposed by the witnesses, who were set up for deposing the eyewitness account, that the learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that the F. I. R. Was registered after preliminary investigations and deliberations, that the names of two witnesses, i.e. Taj Din and Abdul Majid, did- not figure in the F. I. R. And in this regard has referred to PLD 1962 Kar. 800, that Abdul Majid P. W. Was a stock witness and learned counsel in this regard has referred to the statement of Abdul Majid, wherein he has admitted that he had appeared earlier as a presecution witness in two cases, that the statements of the three witnesses are discrepant and that none of the witnesses has stated anything about the injury alleged to have been found on the pharynx of the appellant. Learned counsel in this regard has submitted that this was only a manipulation by the Investigating Officer.
12. Learned counsel for the State while defending the judgment of the trial Court has submitted that admittedly none of the three witnesses, who have deposed the eye-witness account, was related to the deceased, that being residents of the same Mohallah, they cannot be dubbed as chance witnesses and that non-mentioning of the names of Abdul Majid and Taj Din P. Ws. Does not warrant exclusion of their evidence as it was stated in the F. I. R. That persons other than Riaz Rasul had also arrived at the spot and had witnessed the occurrence.
13. There is no evidence on record about motive for the occurrence. The one mentioned in the F. I. R. Cannot be taken note of for the reason that the trial Court had come to the conclusion that the F. I. R. Was prepared after consultations and deliberations, particularly so, because of non-production of the informant.
I have considered the reasonings of the trial Court for holding that/ F. I. R. Was not recorded at Bus Stand. I have not been able to find out any valid reason to differ with that.
' Admittedly Riaz Rasul (P. W. 4) and Taj Din (P. W. 5) have not deposed anything about having seen the appellant causing injuries to the deceased. In fact, they have positively stated that on reaching the spot they had seen the deceased lying there unconscious, in an injured condition, and the appellant standing nearby with a knife in his hand. Abdul Majid (P. W. 2), who has deposed about having seen the appellant inflicting injuries has also not been able to give the seats of the injuries inflicted in his presence. In fact, he has not been able to say whether those injuries were on the upper part or lower part of the body. He was not mentioned as eye- witness in the F.
1. R. So also the name of Taj Din does not figure in the F. I. R. It is not the case of the prosecution that these two witnesses were not known to Abdul Hakim, at whose instance F.
1. R. Was recorded. Riaz Rasul (P. W. 4), regarding whom it is mentioned in the F. I. R. Had seen the occurrence as a whole, has not stated anything regarding infliction of injuries by the appellant. The other important factor is that statements of Abdul Majid, Riaz Rasul and Taj Din are clearly contradictory to each other.
According to Abdul Majid, Riaz Rasul, Taj Din and Abdul Hakim were present when he had reached the spot.
Riaz Rasul contradicts him by saying that Abdul Majid along with Taj Dint and Abdul Hakim were present at the spot before his arrival. Taj Din in turn contradicts Riaz Rasul by stating that when he arrived at the spot, Riaz Rasul and Abdul Hakim were already present there and Majid had come five minutes after his arrival. Apart from the fact that all the three witnesses contradict each other regarding the fact of their presence and arrival at the spot, the other important thing is that if Taj Din had not seen the appellant inflicting injuries to the deceased, how could Abdul Majid ? He had arrived at the spot five minutes after him. Yet the other aspect of the case is th'at if four persons, 1. e. Abdul Hakim, Abdul Majid, Riaz Rasul and Taj Din, had reached the spot alongwith others, they would not have allowed the appellant to run away. It was not necessary for them to have caught the appellant, they could have easily closed the door and thus, not have allowed the appellant to run away. The fact of the names of the two witnesses having not been mentioned in the F. I. R. And widely discrepant statements made by them and their conduct at the spot, in the circumstances of this case, casts doubt regarding veracity of their statements. Their evidence does not inspire confidence and is not worth reliance.
' The evidence of the appellant having been found injured is not worth consideration for the reason that none of the eye-witnesses has deposed that the appellant had received injury during the occurrence. The only injury found on his person was on the terminal phalynx of the left ring finger. The dimension of which was 3/4' x 1/16" x skin deep. Apart from the fact that the injury was a minor one, the doctor in cross-examination has admitted that the injury could have been by a friendly hand.
The only other evidence left for consideration is recovery of blood stained knife (P.
1.) at the instance of the appellant. The evidence of recovery has been deposed to by Abdul Majid (P. W. 2) and Taj Din (P. W. 5). The veracity of the statements of these witnesses regarding occurrence has been found doubtful and has not been considered worth reliance. Apart from this, the evidence of recovery of weapon of offence alone cannot form the basis of conviction.
14. For the reasons enumerated above, prosecution has not been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond reasonable shadows of doubt. He is, therefore, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.