Atta-ur-Rehman (18) and Shahid (16) were tried for the murder of Muhammad Idrees by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. On 25-2-1986, both were convicted under sections 302/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000 each in default to undergo one year R.I. Further. They were also convicted and sentenced under sections 201/34, P.P.C. And sentenced to two years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.1,000 each in default to suffer three months' R.I. Further.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Under section 554-A, Cr.P.C., they were ordered to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000 each to the heirs of the deceased in default of payment each to suffer six months' R.I. Appeals of the convicts and the revision filed by Muhammad Ramzan, petitioner, for the enhancement of sentence are before me.
2. Muhammad Idrees (deceased) was a friend of Ata-ur-Rehman and Shahid appellants. On 22-4- 1984, Idrees was playing carrom at a shop with P.W. Muzaffar Hussain. At about 8 p.m. Ata-ur- Rehman, appeared there and took away Idrees with him for eating "Bhallas" at a bridge. Shahid, accused, also joined then and the three went to the house of P.W. Muhammad Ramzan deceased's father. They told him and deceased's mother P.W. Mst. Rashida that they were going to the bridge for eating "bhallas". The three then left. The deceased did not return home that night. In the morning i.e. On 24-4-1984, Muhammad Ramzan made inquiries from the houses of the accused but was informed that they too were missing Muhammad Ramzan continued searching for his son.
After about 20 days. He received a letter purporting to have been written by the deceased, wherein it was mentioned that he was proceeding to Iran without the knowledge of his friends and that there was nothing to worry about.
3. On 25-4-1984 at about Dopherwela, P.W. Abdul Ghafoor a cart driver, cited a dead body in the Jhal Khanuana canal. Other persons had also collected there. Abdul Ghafoor saw P.W. Wazir Malik.
S.I. Passing that way, he informed him about the dead body. The S.I. Recorded his statement Exh.P.A.
At 1 p.m. On the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh. P.A./1 was registered at Police Station, Peoples Colony, Faisalabad, the same day. The S.I. Went there, got the dead body photographed, prepared the necessary documents and sent it for post-mortem examination.
4. P.W. 8 Dr. A.A. Khalid, Medical Officer, D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad, held the autopsy the same day at 1-30 p.m. The dead-body was unidentified. It bore six stab wounds and five contusions. In doctor's opinion, death occurred clue to shock and haemorrhage caused by four stab wounds.
After the post-mortem examination, the clothes of the deceased were handed over to Nazeer Ahmad, Constale No. 2740 (not produced). Prosecution produced P.W.11 Muhammad Rafiq F.C. 3142 who claimed to have accompanied Nazeer Ahmad. Shalwar P.5, shirt P.6 and pair of Chappal P.7/1- 2 were handed over the same day to the S.I. Through memo. Exh. P.M. Attested by Nazeer Ahmad, Rafiq Constable and the S.I.
5. Further according to the prosecution, after about three months of Muhammad Idrees's disappearance, P.W. Muzaffar Hussain inquired from the appellants, the whereabouts of Idrees.
They told him that they had killed him and had thrown the dead-body in the canal. P.W. Muzaffar Hussain parted this information to deceased's father P.W. Ramzan, upon which, he went to the police station and was informed that a dead-body was found on 25-4-1984 and the clothes in which it was clad were with the police, which he may identify. Thereafter, Muhammad Ramzan went to the Police Station Peoples Colony, where he identified photographs Exh. P.C. And Exh. P.D. Of his son. He also identified the last worn clothes i.e. Shalwar P.5, shirt P.6 and a pair of Chappal P.7/1- 2 of his son.
6. On 26-7-1984 at about 9/10 p.m., P.W. Muhammad Imtiaz, S.I. Was present at the bridge Khalsa College, where he received information about the appellants, upon which he proceeded towards the railway gate. Both accused who were coming from the opposite direction were apprehended.
On search of Shahid, dagger P.2 was recovered which was taken into possession through memo.
Exh.P.G. A silver ring P.3 on which deceased's name. Was scribed was also recovered from him it was taken into possession through memo. Exh. P.H. On search of Ata-ur-Rehman; deceased's wrist watch P.1 on which deceased's name was scribed was recovered, it was taken into possession through memo Exh. P.F. A revolver was also recovered from his possession. Since he had no licence, he was separately prosecuted for it. Deceased's articles were identified by his parents. On 29-7- 1984 the accused pointed out the place of occurrence and the same day Ata-ur-Rehman got recovered Chhuri P.4 from the graveyard which was taken into possession through memo Exh. P.I All the above mentioned memos. Of recovery were attested by P.W. 6 Abad Ali, P W. 13 Muhammad Imtiaz, S.I. And Bashir Ahmad (given up as unnecessary). After completing the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial.
7. Both accused denied guilt and ascribed the case to election enmity.
8. Relying on the evidence of the witnesses with whom the deceased was last seen, the evidence of extra-judicial confession and that of the recoveries from the appellants, trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was satisfactorily proved against them.
9. Criticizing the finding, learned counsel for the appellants contended that a reading of the prosecution evidence leaves an impression that pieces of circumstantial evidence have been cooked up. In support of the submission, it was argued that according to P.W.7 Muzaffar Hussain, Ata--ur-Rehman took away Idrees at about 8 p.m. From a tea shop for eating "Bhallas" at a bridge.
As the story goes, from there, they went to the house of the deceased and informed deceased's parents that they were going to the bridge for eating 'Bhallas'. They were not going to a different village to spend the night there, therefore, it became necessary to inform deceased's parents.
Moreover, if the accused had planned to do away with the deceased, then, they would not have gone to his parents. The visit of the three to the house of the deceased appears to be a made up story. It is noteworthy that P.W. Muhammad Ramzan claimed to have searched for his son all over, but strangely enough, he did not go to the bridge for making inquiries from the 'Bhalla' vendors.
Although he claimed to have searched for his son from Peshawar to Karachi, yet for three months, he made no report to the police. It appears that in order to cover up this lapse, the story of a letter purported to have been written by the deceased to his father also appear to have been made up.
This letter was also not produced by the prosecution. It may also be mentioned here that there is no motive for the crime. On the contrary, it is the prosecution case that the appellants and the deceased were fast friends. The evidence of extra-judicial confession also did not inspire confidence. P.W.7 Muzaffar Hussain is neighbour of the deceased, per chance, he met the accused at a bus stand and inquired about Idrees from them. This casual meeting at a public place where admittedly one Munir a friend of the witness was also present and; there were other persons also, in these surroundings, for the accused to have made the confession did not appeal to reason. It may also be mentioned at this stage that in his police statement, this witness took a different position i.e. On his inquiry, they showed ignorance about Muhammad Idrees but on his taking them in confidence, they confessed the guilt and said that since the deceased was defaming them of sodomy with each other, therefore, they killed him. This motive story came up for the first time in the confronted police statement of the witness which the witness never disclosed to deceased's father because it finds no mention in his statement. Under the circumstances, the confession story is improbable. Moreover, it is also not admissible because in his statement before the police with which this witness was confronted, it is clear that it was a joint confession. The witness, however, tried to make believe at the trial that at the bus stop, both accused made the confession to him one after the other. Obviously, it was a crude attempt on the part of this witness which was probably done under a belated advice.
10. The second part of P.W.7 Muzaffar Hussain's statement about deceased to have been last seen by him with the accused also did not, inspire confidence because he claimed to have informed deceased's father the same day that the accused took away his son with them from a tea shop, where the witness was playing carrom with the deceased. This fact was never mentioned by P.W.10 Muhammad Ramzan. Moreover, in his police statement, the witness did not mention that the deceased was playing carrom with him at a tea shop. He, however, admitted that there were others at the tea shop who saw him and the deceased playing carrom but no one from the alleged tea shop was produced to corroborate his statement. At this stage, reference may also be made to the statement of P.W.9 Inayat, Ali who was produced by the prosecution to prove that the witness had seen the accused and the deceased at the bridge, where they had gone for eating "bhallas".
This witness, however, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.
11. The recovery of the weapons from the accused did not connect them with the crime. There is no evidence that these were the weapons with which the deceased was done to death. Chhuri P.2 was got recovered from an open space accessible to all. Thus the recoveries of the weapons did not advance the prosecution case. In so far as the recoveries of, deceased's articles from the accused were concerned, this evidence too did not inspire confidence. P.W. 6 Abad Ali is a resident of Gulistan Colony which is one mile away from the place of recovery. Bashir the other recovery witness was given up by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer, however, denied that the recovery witnesses were stock witnesses. Be that as it may, the fact remains that according to P.W.
6 Abad Ali, the recovery took place in the morning at about 9/10 a.m. But he is contradicted by P.W.
13 Imtiaz Ali S.I., according to him, the recovery took place late in the evening at about 9/10 p.m. It may be added here, that according to P.W.10 Muhammad Ramzan, his sister presented the watch P.1 to his son. Prosecution failed to produce her in support of P.W. Muhammad Ramzan's statement.
Normally, names are not scribed on watches and rings. In the end, it may be mentioned that the entire prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence and leaves an impression that the prosecution has been fishing for evidence. The evidence of recovery is no better. I am therefore, of the view that the prosecution has not been able to satisfactorily prove its case against the appellants. Giving them the benefit of doubt, I accept their appeals and acquit them of the charge.
They shall be released forth with if not required in any other case.