This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot, whereby, he on 6-11-1980 convicted Bilal Hussain appellant under section 302, P.P.C., for causing the death of Muhammad Ehsan Elahi and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000, in default thereof 6 months' R.I. It was directed that the fine when recovered 3/4th of it be paid to the father of the deceased as compensation.
2. The occurrence took place on the night between 24/25-9-1978 near a canal in the area of village Raja Ghuman of Police Station Daska. The F.I.R. Exh. P.K. Is the statement of Qismat Ali P.W.16, the father of the deceased which was re0orded at Addah Larian, Daska on 25-9-1978 at 5-00 p.m.
Formal F.I.R. Exh. P.k./1 was drawn up at the police station at 5-00 p.m. On 25-9-1978. It may be noted that the name of the appellant was not given in tile F.1.R. It was stated therein that Muhammad Ehsan Elahi deceased was last seen with Mushtaq and Latif by Muhammad Safdar and Noor (both not produced). It was also suspected that they might have done away with the deceased.
3. The prosecution case, briefly, teas that on 24-9-1978, Ehsan Elahi deceased in the absence of his mother took away a pair of golden ear-rings, a wrist watch and Rs.225 in cash from his house.
While leaving the house, he told Mst. Rukhsana P.W. That he was going to Daska and would come soon but he did not return till evening. On this Qismat Ali made a search for him. Muh.0mmad Sardar, father of Bilal appellant (not produced) told the complainant that he has seen the deceased in the company of Mushtaq and Latif in Main Bazar Daska at about 3-00 p.m. Noor (not produced) informed the complainant that he had also, seen the deceased with Latif and' Mushtaq at about 6-00 p.m. On 25-9-1978. Thereafter, Qismat Ali came to know that a dead- body of a boy was lying near the canal bridge, Raja Ghuman. He went there and identified the dead body as that of his son. He found several injuries on the dead body. From there Qismat Ali proceeded towards the police station to lodge the report.
4. Dr. Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhary, jP.W.12 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Ehsan Elahi on 26-9-1978 at 1-00 p.m. He found the following injuries on his person:-- (1)"Incised wound 7" x 2" bone deep on the left side of neck at its middle extending from the front left side towards the back and left aside of neck.
(2)Incised wound 2" x 1" muscle deep on the left cheek just below the angle of left jaw.
(3)Abrasions 3" x 3" on the top of left shoulder joint.
(4)Incised wound -- " x -- " abdominal cavity deep on the right side of epigestrium region.
(5)Incised wound 3" x 1" x abdominal cavity deep on the front of abdomen over the umblicus and its upper part. The intestines were protruding out of the wound.
(6)Incised wound -- " x -- "x chest cavity deep on the outer side of fright chest at its lower part.
(7)Incised wound 3" x 1" x abdominal cavity deep on the back left lumber region at its upper part.
(8)Incised wound 3" x 1" on the palmed surface of left hand at the root of the thumb.
(9)Superficial incised wound 3" x -- " on the outer side of right wrist joint.
(10)Two small incised wounds close to each other sue 3" x --" muscle deep on the front and right side of neck at its upper part.
5. Bilal appellant was arrested on 17-2-1980. On 22-2-1980 he led to the recovery of blood-stained Churri Exh. P.6 from his house which was taken into possession, vide memo. Exh. P.F. Attested by Muhammad Saeed P.W.6 and Muhammad Ashraf P.W.7. On the same day, he got recovered a pair of ear-rings Exh.P.4 and a Camey wrist watch Exh.P.5 which were taken into possession, vide memo.
Exh.P.E. Attested by the same witnesses. The Serologist Report Exh .P.A.A. Reveals that Churri was stained with human blood. During the investigation, police arrested Muhammad Asghar alias Muhammad Ashraf alias Achhu, the approver P.W.14. He pointed out the place of occurrence on 25- 2-1980. Muhammad Asghar also got recovered Shalwar Exh.P.7 and shirt Exh.P.8 which were not blood-stained. As desired by Muhammad Asghar, he was made approver by the District Magistrate. He was produced before the Magistrate who recorded his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
6. To prove its case, prosecution examined 19 witnesses. Muhammad Asghar was examined as an approver. He stated that 10/12 days before the occurrence, Bilal appellant had disclosed to him that he had asked Ehsan Elahi to bring ornaments and money from his house. He (appellant) instigated him (approver) to pin him in killing Ehsan Elahi and that half of the share in the ornaments and money will be given to him (approver). As far the main occurrence, the approver stated that at 4- 00 p.m. On the eventful day, the appellant took him to the bridge of the canal where Ehsan Elahi was already present. Bilal Hussain appellant was armed with a Churri. Bilal also gave a Chhuri to him (approver). They took Ehsan Elahi with them on the bank of canal. Since no suitable place could be found, therefore, they came back and when they reached near the bridge of Raja Ghuman, the appellant took the deceased aside and gave Chhuri blows on different parts of his body. The approver stated that he also inflicted Chhuri blows .On the back of the deceased. He further stated that after inflicting injuries to Ehsan Elahi, the appellant removed a pair of ear-rings, wrist watch and 3 photographs. The witness stated that after causing injuries to the deceased he and the appellant came to the bridge of canal near Daska and washed hands land clothes. At that time, the appellant told him that- he had killed Ehsan Elahi because he had shown his male organ to his sister. The witness further stated that the appellant kept the watch and the ear-rings with him and promised to pay his share later on. The witness admitted that he had got recovered Shalwar Exh. P.7 and Shirt Exh. PA and that he had washed away the blood. He admitted of his having made statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. i.e. Exh. P.O. Before the Magistrate. Dr. Muhammad Nawaz Chaudhary P.W.12 has proved the post-mortem report of the deceased. Muhammad Saeed P.W.6 and Muhammad Ashraf P.W.7 have proved the recoveries of blood--stained Chhuri, ear-rings and wrist watch from the appellant. They have also proved the recovery of Shalwar Exh. P.7 and Shirt Exh. P.8 of the approver. Muhammad Mushtaq Khan, Inspector C.I.A, P.W.19 had effected the recoveries. Muhammad Saeed P.W.11 states that receipt Exh. P.H. Of the ear-rings purchased by Qismat Ali P.W. Was written by him. Mst. Rukhsana P.W.15 stated that on the eventful day she had seen Ehsan Elahi going towards Desks followed by Bilal Hussain on a bicycle, Ch. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, Magistrate has proved the statement Exh. P.O. Made before him by the approver. The rest of the evidence is more or less of formal nature.
7. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. In defence he did not produce any witness.
8. The learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on last seen evidence supported by Mst.
Rukhsana P.W.15 and the statement of the approver. The learned trial Court has disbelieved the recoveries of ear-rings and wrist watch from the appellant and has disbelieved the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri from the appellant.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, inasmuch as, there is no reliable corroboration of the statement of the approver. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.
10. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. It is well-settled that for the safe administration of justice, the corroboration of the statement of the approver in its material, particulars is always needed. In the case in hand, I find that the statement of Mst. Rukhsana P.W. 15 cannot be used as evidence of last seen inasmuch as in the F.I.R. It was stated that the deceased was last seen with Mushtaq and Latif and not with the appellant. If the statement of Mst. Rukhsana is excluded from consideration, the uncorroborated statement of the approver alone remains in the field which under the law is not sufficient for sustaining the conviction of the appellant. For these reasons I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
11. For what has been stated above, while giving him the benefit of doubt, the appellant is acquitted of the charge.