1. JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 6th July, 1980 whereby Mukhtar Ahmad alias Tari respondent was acquitted of the charge under section 302, PPC for the murder of his brother's wife namely, Mst. Shamim Akhtar.
2. The respondent was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge Lahore under section 302, PPC for the murder of Mst. Shamim Akhtar deceased and the trial court vide its Judgment dated 9th December 1978 convicted him under the aforesaid section and sentenced him to life imprisonment plus fine.
3. In appeal the Lahore High Court Lahore acquitted the respondent. Hence the present petition by Muhammad Ahmad Khan complainant brother of the deceased.
4. Briefly the facts are that the deceased was wife of Mumtaz Ahmad i.e. Brother of the present respondent but their relations were strained and she was living in the house of her parents. The motive is that the respondent being a man of bad character wanted to developed illicit relations with her. The occurrence took place at 5 p.m. On 15th April 1978 in the house of the husband of the deceased. The FIR was lodged by Mohammad Ahmad Khan complainant at 6-15 p.m. On the same day. The respondent was arrested on the next day i.e. 16th April 1978. At his instance were recovered on the same day human blood-stained. Chhuri P9, human blood-stained shirt P10 and human blood-stained Shalwar P11 worn by him. The eye-witnesses are Muhammad Ahmad Khan complainant-PW brother of the deceased and Mohammad Amir PW brother-in-law of the deceased. According to the medical evidence there were 13 incised injuries on the person of the deceased by sharp edged weapon. According to the prosecution version on the fateful day the respondent came to the house of the parents of the deceased at about 12 noon and took the deceased to the house of her husband on the pretext that her husband Mumtaz was seriously ill.
5. Thereafter Muhammad Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Amir PWs as well as Mst. Farida Begum followed them to inquire about the welfare of Mumtaz. When they reached the house of the husband of the deceased at about 5 p.m. They heard shrieks of the deceased. The petitioner pushed forcibly the door which opened and they witnessed that the deceased was lying on the bed and respondent was inflicting Chhuri blows on her. On the alarm of the witnesses the respondent made good his escape.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Lahore High Court Lahore acquitted the respondent mainly for the reason that the motive had not been proved, that the ocular testimony of Muhammad Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Amir P.Ws. Was not reliable and that the recovery evidence was likewise not believable as the aforesaid two eye-witnesses were also the attesting witnesses of the recoveries. However it was submitted by the learned counsel that the Lahore High Court Lahore did not believe the version of the eye-witnesses to the effect that the respondent had come to the house of the parents of the deceased and took her alongwith him to her husband's house. The observations of the Lahore High Court on this point are that the deceased could have not alone accompanied respondent to the house of her husband in the background of the motive set up by the prosecution. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the eye-witnesses have been disbelieved on this point whereas the respondent himself had stated in his statement before the trial court that he came to the house of the parents of the deceased and took her alongwith him to the house of her husband. Furthermore the respondent has stated before the trial Court that he brought .The deceased from her parents' house on the day of occurrence to the house of her husband as her husband had asked him to arrange a meeting between them. Thus according to the learned counsel despite the fact that it had been admitted by the respondent that he took the deceased from the house of her parents to the house of her husband, the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court were not correct in arriving at the conclusion that the eye-witnesses were unreliable and that the deceased could have not accompanied the respondent alone to the house of her husband. It was further submitted that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of her husband and that if the husband of the deceased had murdered her, the eye-witnesses would have certainly named him as the assailant and not the present respondent. It was also submitted that the recoveries in this case were also attested by the investigating officer against whom there was no allegation that he had conducted the investigation in a dishonest manner. It was then pointed out that it was not a case of substitution as the FIR was lodged within an hour of the occurrence on the same day as promptly as possible and it was only the respondent who was named in the FIR as assailant of the deceased by the complainant-petitioner who was also eye-witness of the occurrence.
7. We grant leave in this case in order to examine as to whether or not the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court Lahore have made a proper appraisal of the evidence in accordance with the well-established principles of the administration of criminal justice.
8. Non-bailable warrants to issue against Mukhtar Ahmad alias Tari respondent.