' This petition for revision is directed against judgment, dated 27th October, 1985 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby he acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 302, P.P.C.
2. The F.I.R. Version of the occurrence is that on 15th June, 1985 Mst. Khadeja Bibi and her husband Muhammad Ali went to Faisalabad for giving Eid presents to their daughter-in-law. On 16th June, 1985 at about 9 p.m. They came back from Faisalabad and alighted from the bus at Bus Stand Mananwala. From there, they started for their village on foot.
When they covered a distance of about two Killas, a young man came from behind and asked the deceased as to where he and Mst. Khadeja were going. The deceased asked him to mind his own business, upon which he took out a pistol and fired at the deceased hitting him in the chest, as a result of which he died at the spot. On the alarm of Mst. Khadeja many persons reached the spot.
The assailant ran away towards the fields.
3. At the trial Mst. Khadeja Bibi furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. Shan Muhammad (P.W.2) stated that he saw the accused (respondent herein) running away after having fired a shot at Muhammad All deceased. Zia Ahmad Khan (P.W.10) furnished evidence of extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the respondent before him.
4. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against him.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mst. Khadeja Bibi, Shan Muhammad and Zia Ahmad Khan are independent witnesses having absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the respondent, therefore, order of acquittal is unsustainable.
6. I have gone through the record and given my careful consideratio to the submission made by the learned counsel. The respondent is no named in the F.I.R. It is admitted that no identification parade wa held. The statement of Mst. Khadeja, therefore, does not help th prosecution. Shan Muhammad P.W. Is not named as an eye-witness I the F.I.R. He stated that after the occurrence he had a talk with Mst. Khadeja Bibi and she requested him to go to her relatives and inform them about the occurrence. If Shan Muhammad P.W. Had been there and had seen the respondent running away after firing at the deceased, he must have apprised Mst. Khadeja of this fact and, in that view of the matter, she would not have omitted to name the respondent in the F.I.R. As the assailant of her husband. Strangely enough, Shan Muhammad has stated that Mst. Khadeja had told him and his companions that Aflatoon respondent was the murderer of her husband. Initially it was not the case of the prosecution that the assailant of the deceased had been identified at the time of occurrence. The evidence of Shan Muhammad too does not inspire any confidence.
7. Zia Ahmad Khan P.W. Stated that on 26-6-1985 Aflatoon respondent came to him at his petrol-pump and asked him for help. He promised to help him, upon which he told him that a Mistri and his wife were proceeding towards their village after giving Eid to their daughter-in-law; he also demanded Eid from the said Mistri but he got annoyed and started grappling; he had wrapped his face but it got uncovered during grappling and the Mistri told him that he had recognised him; in the meantime he heard noise being raised by Dr. Sadiq, upon which he fired at the Mister causing his death. It will be noted that in the F.I.R. It is nowhere stated that the responded demanded Eid from the deceased or that there was grappling between him and the deceased. It is also not stated therein that the responded C had covered his face which got uncovered during the grappling and the deceased told him that he had recognised him. In any case, the extra-judicial confession being the weakest type of evidence, is per s not sufficient to make a basis for conviction.
8. For the foregoing reasons, there is no ground for interference with the impugned order and this petition is dismissed in limine. in limine.