1. ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, C. J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellant Sultan son of Faiz Muhammad, aged 20 years of an offence under section 302, P. P. C. And sentencing him to transportation for life. It was alleged by the prosecution that on the 6th of March 1966, at about Sohmani the near village Rehmatullah Jatoi, he caused the death of Haleem Jatoi aged 22 years. The motive, according to the prosecution, was that the appellant suspected the deceased to be on illicit intimacy with his wife Mst. Nawazi which matter, however, was referred to the elders and settled on the appellant's under--taking to give 4 girls and Rs. 1,000 as compensation. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant himself reported the crime at the Duber Police Station of Sukkur District at 7-45 a.m. The next morning, the 7th of March with Shah Nawaz, H. C. Who recorded the First Information Report. Not only the accused is said to have confessed his guilt before the police officer, which admission however, cannot be proved by, virtue of section 25 of the Evidence Act, but the shirt worn by him was blood- stained and so the hatchet said to be the weapon of offence. These articles were recovered by the police officer in the presence of mashir Sahibdino, and thereafter the accused is said to have led the police and the mashirs to the place where the body of the deceased was lying. The rnashirnama thereof was prepared. By .S. H. O. Safiullah P. W. 9, who came to the scene of offence on receiving the report. It may be said that the blood-stained articles recovered from the person of the accused were found by the Chemical Analyser in his report Exh. 22 to be stained with human; blood.
2. The body of the deceased was sent to the Medical Dispen--sary at Rohri, where Dr. Abdul Haleem noticed the following external injuries :-
(1) An incised wound with sharp edges 7" x 2" x 2 1/2" on the lower part of occipital region head direction horizon--tal cutting the occipital bone and first cervical vertebra.
(2) An incised wound 5-- x 1/4" x skin deep on the back of right shoulder direction oblique.
(3) An incised wound 5" x 1" x bone deep cutting the bone also on the left parietal region of the head extending to the frontal bone, direction oblique.
(4) An incised wound 6" x 1" x bone deep cutting gone and deep into the brain matter on the right parietal region of the head, extending down to the frontal and maxillary bones, direc--tion almost horizontal and entro-posterior."
3. On internal examination the Doctor noticed that the membranes and brain were lacerated, spinal cord was cut due to external injury No. 1, the right side of the heart was full, while the left side was empty. All these injuries in the opinion of the doctor were ante-mortem and three of these namely injuries 1, 3 and 4 were individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
4. It is further said that the crime was seen by Iqbal P. W. 8, and Sherdil P. W. 6 who came to the spot hearing the cries, did however, see the culprit escaping with the weapon of offence. It is further stated that the father of the deceased, Mail P. W. 7, was thereafter informed of the incident on the next morning, but in the meantime the crime had been reported by the accused himself.
5. The learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the alleged eyewit--nesses Iqbal and Sherdil on the ground that their versions, were discrepant in essential details. Be, however, rested the' convic-- tion on the circumstantial evidence of the accused having himself reported the crime, the recovery of the blood-stained shirt and the weapon of offence from his person, and the fact of his having led the police and the mashirs to the place from where the body of the deceased was recovered, which fact was not known to the police.
6. After having gone through the record with .The assistance of the learned counsel, we see no justification for interference with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in regard to the appreciation of ocular evidence led by the prosecution from the months of the witnesses Iqbal and Sherdil. Both these wit--nesses were closely related to the deceased, in that the former was his maternal uncle while the latter, a paternal uncle. If the witnesses are to be believed then it is strange conduct on their part that they did not even care to go to the police station to report the murder of their close relation within their eye sight until the police came over the next morning at 12 noon. The crime, according to the prosecution, occurred at Sohmani the on the 6th of March 1966, and the police came to the scene of offence at 12 noon the next day. Moreover, there are several discrepancies in their statements affecting essential details which have been pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge and we need not repeat them. The question then is whether the circumstantial evidence in this case is of the type on which it could be said that it constitutes a chain which cannot permit a loop-hole legitimately leading to the inference of the innocence of the accused.
7. As to the question of discovery of the place where the body of the deceased was found by the police at the instance of the accused, we may point out that in cross-examination, Sherdil admitted having stated in the lower Court and also in his 164 statement that he and Mail, the father of the deceased, had accompanied the police along with the accused to the wardat from the Police Station. We may further mention that even the Mashirnama states that it was the father of the deceased who had led the police to the place from where the body of the deceased was found.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the discovery of the dead body was from a public place in the open, near the houses of several, persons, which fact could not have gone unnoticed the next morning or until 12 noon of the next day of the crime, and in the circumstances the prosecution theory that it was the accused who had led to the discovery o the dead body cannot be taken into consideration under the pro--visions of section 27 of the Evidence Act.
9. There then remains the other to circumstances as to the recovery of the blood-stained shirt and the hatchet from the person of the accused and the fact that he himself lodged the report. The first to pieces by themselves cannot be the basis of guilt, none of these being substantive pieces of evidence. Nor can it be safely held on the facts of this case that it was the accused who did in fact report the crime because the relatives of the deceased were also at the police station:. It cannot, therefore, be conclusively held, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the police legitimately recorded the F. I. R. At the instance o the accused himself.
10. For all these reasons, we hold that the circumstantial evi--dence led by the prosecution is not of the type which consti--tutes a chain of a nature which does not permit reasonable doubt as to the innocence of the accused.
11. The appeal must, therefore, succeed and is accordingly allow--ed. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith. If not required in any other case.