Liaqat Ali (18) was tried for the murder of Mst. Kausar Perveen On 9-10-1982, Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, found him guilty, convicted him under section 302, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000 in default to undergo three years' R.I. Further. A portion of the fine, if realized was ordered to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. The convict has come up in appeal.
2. Mst. Kausar Perveen (deceased) was about 13/14 years of age. Her mother had died about a year before the occurrence in this case. She lived with her father P.W. Yaseen at the Dera of Maulvi Muhammad Umer in Chak Lakhia. Liaqat (appellant) also lived at the same Dera. With evil design, Liaqat and his friend Yusuf, a servant of P.W. Shafi used to chase the deceased. A month before the occurrence in this case, Liaqat outraged the modesty of Mst. Kausar Perveen, her father P.W.
Yaseen happened to notice this incident. Since he also cultivated the land of P.W. Shafi, therefore, he did not dare to report against Liaqat who was nephew of his landlord. About three days before the occurrence in this case, Yusuf asked for the hand of Mst. Kausar Perveen in marriage for Liaqat but Yaseen refused him. Further, according to the prosecution, on 15-9-1980 Mst. Kausar Perveen went for the call of nature in the afternoon but never returned. Her brother P.W. 9 Jan Muhammad searched for her, two days later i.e. On 17-9-1980, he found her dead body lying in the sugarcane field of P.W. Umar Hayat of their village. Thereafter, he proceeded towards the police station. He met with Ghulam Rasoool S.I. In Kamoky Bazar and made statement Exh. P.B. At 2-30 p.m. To him.
On the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh. P.B./1 was registered at police station Kamoky, the same day.
P.W. 11 Ghulam Rasool, S.I. Went to the spot, prepared the necessary documents and sent the dead body for its post-mortem examination.
3. P. W. 1 Dr. Nazeer Ahmad, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Gujranwala, held the autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Kausar Perveen and found "a ligature mark on left side and in front of the neck and on the level of thyroid cartilage. Ecchymosis under the skirt was present, its size was 15 cm x 2-314 cm.
He also noticed two punctured wound on the toe and the ear. Her left ear was missing. In doctor's opinion, Mst. Kausar Perveen died of asphyxia caused by strangulation.
4. On 19-9-1980 P.W. 6 Muhammad Shafi, real uncle of Liaqat appellant produced him before the police because he had made a confession of guilt before him, saying that he wanted to commit rape on her Since she resisted he, therefore, killed her. The S.I. Arrested the appellant.
5. P.W. 10 Nazeer Ahmad, A.S.I. Also investigated this case. On 29-9-1980 in custody Liaqat led to the recovery of blood stained Dopatta P.I. Which was made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession vide memo Exh. P.E. Attested by Jan Muhammad and Yaseen P.Ws besides the Investigating Officer. After completing the investigation the accused was sent up for trial.
6. Explaining the case against him, Liaqat appellant denied the prosecution case and said that his father Muhammad and his uncle Shafi had old enmity over partition of land, therefore, he has been falsely roped in. He added that in fact Yusuf the domestic servant of P.W. Shafi was arrested by the police but Shafi managed to get him out. Liaqat produced his school leaving certificate Exh. D.C. In proof of his age, according to it, he was a few months less than 16 years of age on the day of occurrence.
7. Relying on the statement of P.W. 6 Muhammad Shafi and the recovery of deceased's Dopatta P.1.
Trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was satisfactorily proved against the appellant but on account of his youth, he was awarded tile lesser penalty.
8. The main contention in the appeal is that the evidence of extra --judicial confession is a weak type of evidence, therefore, it is not safe to place reliance on it unless it is corroborated by reliable evidence which is not there in this case.
9. Besides the evidence of recovery of deceased's 'Dopatta' P.1. Prosecution also produced evidence to prove that soon after the occurrence, the appellant was seen coming out of the sugarcane field and was very nervous at that time. In support of this, prosecution relied on the statement of P.W. 7 Hameed Ahmad but did not produce Ibrahim who was said to be with the witness. The deceased was P.W. Hameed's maternal-cousin. According to this witness, two days prior to the disappearance of the deceased, he and Ibrahim had gone to Yaseen father of the deceased. He, however, could not explain the purpose for which he had come from Chunian to visit Yaseen. P.W.
Hameed said that on 15-9-1980 at 'Asr' time, he and Ibrahim went into a sugarcane field for answering the call of nature and saw Liaqat coming out of the held. He appeared to be nervous and exhausted and on seeing them he started running. Four days later when they had gone back to Chunian, they learnt about the occurrence in their village and again visited the house of Yaseen 15 days after the occurrence for condolence. Besides the fact that P.W.7 Hameed is a close relation of the deceased, even) otherwise his statement inspires no confidence because after having learnt about the murder, it took him 15 days to visit the house of A P.W. Yaseen for condolence. The story put up by him was rather improbable. It appears that he could not be contacted to make statement before that. His evidence, is, therefore, rightly ruled out of consideration by the trial Court.
10. The next piece of evidence is the recovery of 'Dopatta' P.1. At the pointing out of the appellant from a rice field. This recovery was affected 10 days after the appellant's arrest and was attested by P.W. 8 Jan Muhammad, brother of the deceased and P.W. 9 Yaseen her father. A rice crop is not very high; if the accused was to hide the 'Dopatta', he could have destroyed it otherwise or hidden it in the sugarcane field. The place from where it is said to have been recovered is open, visible and.
Accessible to all. According to P.W. 3 Muhammad g Yaqoob, Patwari, he had shown this field in the site plan because it was pointed out to him that the 'Dopatta' was recovered from there. This witness inspected the spot on 19-9-1980 whereas the 'Dopatta', according to the prosecution was recovered on 29-9-1980. Red note ---C' in the site plan incorporated by Nazeer Ahmad, S.I. Shows the place from where the 'Dopatta' was recovered. So the story of recovery of 'Dopatta' appears to have been made up later because the fact that the deceased was strangulated with her own 'Dopatta' which had been hidden in a rice field is also not mentioned in the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made before P.W. 6 Shafi. In all probability, this recovery was introduced to strengthen the prosecution case by putting up some corroboration of the extra- judicial confession.
11. Since the two corroborating pieces of evidence mentioned above have not been found to be reliable, I do not consider it safe to rely on the evidence of extra-judicial confession alone. Thus P.W.
6 Shafi before whom the appellant was said to have confessed is his real uncle yet I find there are other circumstances appearing in the evidence which do not inspire confidence, for example, the accused was said to have confessed before P.W. 6 Shafi on 16-9-1980 but he was arrested on the following day. The police station was hardly four miles from their Dera. There is a delay in making the report. Moreover, the report was not made at the police station, it was said to have been made to the S.I. In the Bazar. Strained relations of appellant's father with his brother Shafi have also been alleged though not admitted by him. In view of these circumstances, it is not safe to place reliance on the solitary statement of P.W. 6 Shafi. I am not satisfied with the guilt of the appellant. I, therefore, give him the benefit of doubt and acquit him. His conviction and sentence is set aside. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.