' Muhammad Ishaq appellant was convicted on 14-10-1978, by the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs, 2,000 or in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. For one year. The fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased. Feeling aggrieved of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Muhammad Ishaq filed the present appeal.
2. Zulfiqar deceased cultivated the land of Abdul Maleek Arain in village Mubarikpur. He lived in the neighbourhood of the appellant. He contacted illicit relations with the sister of the appellant, and abducted her. He restored her two or three days later. The deceased shifted to Chak No, 10/A.H.
Where his brother Muhabbat Ali P.W. Resided. The deceased started joint business with his brother Muhabbat Ali P.W. For the purchase of wheat. Muhammad Ali Arain resident of Chah Baghat Singhwala owed some money to the deceased. On 24-9-1977, at about 1-30 p.m. Zulfiqar deceased, Muhabbat Ali complainant and Ghulam Muhammad P.W. Left on their motor cycles for bara meel. Muhabbat Ali complainant and Ghulam Mahammad P.W. Stood on the way while the deceased left for Chah Baghat Singhwala in order to get back his money from Muhammad Ali Arain. The deceased did not return for some time. The complainant and Ghulam Mahammad left for Chah Baghat Singhwila in order to find out the deceased. When they reached near the Ihata of Muhammad Ali, they found Ishaq appellant inflicting hatchet blows to the deceased. The complainant and Ghulam Muhammad raised noise, which attracted Karam Din. The said three witnesses saw the occurrence. They wanted to go near the deceased but were threatened with death, by the appellant. After committing the murder, the appellant left the spot with his hatchet.
Leaving Ghulam Muhammad and Karam Din with the dead body, Muhabbat Ali reached the Police Station the same day at 2.30 p.m. And lodged the F.I.R.
3. Muhammad Ajaib, A.S.I. Police Station Kabirwala, recorded the F.I.R. On reaching the spot, he prepared injury statement and inquest report of the deceased and sent the dead body for post- mortem examination. He collected blood-stained earth from the spot and made it into a sealed parcel. He recorded motor cycle for the deceased from the spot alongwith registration book, etc Muhammad Basharat S.I. Partly investigated this case. He arrested Ishaq appellant on 25-9-1977.
On the same day, the appellant produced blood-stained hatchet from near his house and it was sealed into a parcel. Allah Data and Said Muhammad attested the memo. After completing the investigation, Muhammad Basharat S.H.O. Submitted the challan.
4. Dr. Syed Riaz-ud-Din Zaidi conducted autopsy on the dead body of Zulfiqar on 25-9-1977 at 9-00 a.m. And found eleven incised wounds on the dead body. In the opinion of the doctor, the death was on account of injuries Nos. 10 and 11, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries had been caused by sharp edged weapon. The time between injuries and death was 3-5 minutes and between death and post-mortem 20-24 hours.
5. The prosecution examined Muhabbat Ali (P.W. 6) and Karam Din (P.W. 7) as the eye witnesses.
The third eye-witness, namely, Ghulam Muhammad was given up by the Prosecutor. The deceased was a first cousin of Muhaboat Ali complainant. Karam Din P W. Resided at Chah Chambay Wala, which was at a distance of three and a half square from the spot. On the day of occurrence, he had gone to call Mistri Shah Muhammad from Kothi No, 7 situated in the area of Mauza Mubarikpur. He was a chance witness. Muhabbat Ali complainant stated that Gnulam Muhammad P.W. Demanded some empty bags from him and he told him that he would arrange the bags from Adda Bara Meel and for that reason, he and Ghulam Muhammad set out on motor cycle. It was a new story and not given by the complainant in the FIR. According to the complainant, he accompanied by Ghulam Mahammad and the deceased left on motor cycles for the recovery of money from Mahammad Ali. Tne complainant further stated that he and Gaulam Muhammad stayed behind at Rajah, whereas the deceased went alone to tne house of Mahammad Ali. The complainant and Ghulam Muhammad waited for twenty to thirty minutes and when the deceased did not return, they went to the house of Muhammad Ali Arain. The story given by Muhabbat Ali complainant was highly improbable. Ghulam Muhammad was not produced for the corroboration of his statement. Hence 1 am not prepared to place any reliance on the testimony of the two eye-witnesses.
6. Muhammad Ishaq resided in Mauza Mubarikpur. According to the prosecution case, he produced blood-stained hatchet from near his residential house, Allah Ditta, the attesting witness, was not a resident of the locality. He lived in Chak No, 10/All, which was at a distance of more than five miles. There were about twelve houses near the place of recovery and fifteen/twenty residents of the locality were present at the A time of recovery, but none of them was asked to attest the recovery memo. In these circumstances, I reject the statement of Allah Ditta P.W. The case against the appellant was not proved beyond reasonable doubt I accept this appeal, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and acquit Muhammad Ishaq appellant of the charge under section 302, P. P. C. He shall be set free forthwith if not required in any other case.