' Nazir Ahmad soil- of Rehmat All (22) has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 22-1-1983 under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default to undergo one year's R.I. Further. The fine was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. He has appealed.
2. The motive for the offence was that the appellant had illicit relations with Mst. Shafqat daughter of Muhammad Siddique, the employer of the deceased. Muhammad Malak deceased had seen him while kissing and embracing Mst. Shafqat. The appellant apprehended that the deceased might inform her relations and for this reason he done him to death with a Chhuri on the night of 16-11-1981 in a field situated in between Village Jajopur and Vains.
3. The occurrence was not witnessed by anybody but Nawab Din P.W .7, and uncle of the deceased had received information about his murder on which he went to the place of occurrence and after seeing the dead body of Muhammad Malak deceased proceeded to Police Station Phillaura and on the way came across Muhammad Salim A.S.I. (P.W.12) to whom he made his statement Exh.P.B.
Formal F.I.R. Exh.PBI1 was recorded on the same night by H.C. Manzoor P.W.2 on the basis of statement Exh.P.B. Muhammad Salim, A.S.I. Visited the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest report Exh.P.H. And injury statement Exh.P.H/1 in respect of the dead body. He took into possession the clothes of the deceased and the blood-stained earth.
4. Tariq Hanif, S.I. (P.W.13) arrested the appellant on 24-11-198 after he had been produced before him by Muhammad Hussain (not examined).On 27-11-1981 the appellant got recovered Chhuri P.8 from his house which was stained with human blood vide Serologist's report Exh. P.Q. {{Misarrange Data}}
5. Dr. Muhammad Sarwar P. W.14 conducted the post-mortem examination on the- dead body of Muhammad Malak deceased on 17-1-1981 at 1.00 p.m. And found the following injuries thereon:
(1) An incised wound 2.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. On right cheek. An incised wound 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x 0.7 c.m. On right mandible.
(2)
(3) An incised stab wound 4.5 c.m x 1 front of right chest starting from down-wards, inwards and outw ards. Clean.
(4) An incised end 4 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. c.m. x deep to cavity on nipple running oblequely Edges of the wound were x deep to cavity on outside {{Misarrange Data}} of right lumbar region. The direction of wound was downwards, inwards. Edges of the wound were clean.
(5) An incised wound 10 c.m. x 3 c.m. Deep to bone on front of right lower rib. Edges of the wound were clean.
(6) A stab-incised wound 7 c.m. x 3.5 c.m. x deep to cavity in epigastrium. Direction of the wound wits obliquely downwards. Intestines and mesentry were protruding out. The large intestine was cut at places and faecal matter was coming out.
(7) A stab-incised wound 7 c.m. x 4 c.m. x deep to cavity in outer side of left lumbur region. The direction of the wound was from below upwards, inwards and medially.
(8) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x bone deep on outer side of right hip.Edges of the wound were clean,
(9) An incised wound 3.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on inner side of front of right knee.
' All the injuries were ante-mortem and had been caused by sharp-edged weapon. Injuries Nos.3, 6 and 7 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8.
8. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations. He attributed the case to enmity and suspicion but did not produce any defence.
' The prosecution tried to connect the appellant with the offence by the motive, the extra-judicial confession before Munawar Saeed P.W.15, by the evidence of Hidayat Ullah P.W.8 who claimed to have seen the appellant near the place of occurrence and Muhammad Yousaf P.W.9 who had seen the appellant running away from near the place of occurrence while armed with Chhuri. The recovery of Chhuri P.8 at the instance of appellant was also pressed into service.
9. The learned trial Court disbelieved the recoveries and the motive but considered the evidence of Munawar Saeed P.W.15 who proved the extra-judicial confession and that of Hidayat Ullah P.W.8 and Muhammad Yousaf P.W.9 as sufficient to connect the appellant with the offence.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is absolutely no corroboration of Munawar Saeed P.W.15. There was no reason for the appellant to have approached him to make his breast clean. According to Munawar Saeed P.W.15 the appellant had no concern with him in his routine life and there was no formal visits between them. In his statement before the police there was no motive mentioned for the murder but at the trial he stated that the appellant had informed that he had killed the deceased because he had surprised him while kissing and embracin Mst.
Shafqat daughter of Muhammad Siddique. Furthermore he did not apprehend the appellant nor produce him before the police but allowed him to go. The extra-judicial confession has always been considered to be a very weak evidence and has seldom been acted upon without any corroboration. The required corroboration is not forthcoming in the instant case. The mere status and position of Munawar Saeed P.W. I not sufficient to infer that whatever he has stated is nothing but the truth. Hidayat Ullah P.W.8 who claims to have seen the appellant near the place of occurrence has not said anything except that he had seen him smoking cigarette and when he enquired from him as why he was sitting there he replied that he was waiting for someone. He appeared before the police seven days after the occurrence. If he had actually seen the appellant near the place of occurrence he should have appeared before the police on the same day particularly when it was a blind murder. Likewise no implicit reliance can be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of Muhammad Yousaf P.W.9 who claims to have seen the appellant near the place of occurrence armed with a Chhuri. According to him he learnt about the murder after one hour of having seen the appellant there but surprisingly there is no mention of his meeting with the appellant in the F.I.R. There was no reason for this omission. According to him he had told the persons present near the dead bed but could not explain as to why they did not mention this fact in the F . I . R . ##TR##
11. As already stated above, there is no ocular evidence in the case. The motive and the recoveries have already been disbelieved by the trial Court. The remaining pieces of evidence are not strong enough to bring home the guilt to the appellant beyond all shadow of doubt. Consequently, I accept his appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence and acquit him of the charge. He shall be released from the immediately if not required in any other case.