Amjad Rashid respondent alongwith Muhammad Rafique, Rashid Ahmad Shah and Saghir Hussain Shah was charged for the murder of Shan Khan deceased on 19-5-1976 at 9.00 a.m. Rashid Ahmad Shah and Saghir Hussain Shah were acquitted by the trial Court on 11-12-1982 while Muhammad Rafique who was sentenced to imprisonment for life was acquitted by the High Court on 31-3-- -1985.
Amjad Rashid respondent had allegedly absconded after the occurrence and was arrested on 3- 2-1988. He was also tried but was acquitted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Faisalabad by his judgment dated 10-12-1988. The present revision is directed against the said order.
2. The prosecution case is that on 19-5-1976, Nasir Khan petitioner (complainant) brother of the deceased had taken his cattle to the cattle pond Rehmat Ullah P.W.6 and Manzoor (Given up) were already present there. Muhammad A.I, a given up P.W. Also passed by that side and stopped there.
Shan Khan deceased came there from his house. When he reached to front of the house of Nasir Khan P.W. Rashid Shah and Saghir Shah who were armed with pistols raised lalkara and exhorted the respondent and Muhammad Rafique to teach a lesson to him for compromise with Din Muhammad against their wishes. The deceased turned back whereupon the respondent fired a gun-shot at him hitting him on the right side of his chest who fell down and died instantaneously.
The accused ran away.
The motive for the occurrence was that one Din Muhammad owed an amount of Rs. 3,030 to the complainant party. The latter succeeded in recovering the said amount without the intervention of Rashid Shah who felt annoyed because the compromise had been effected without his consent. A day prior to the occurrence. Arshad Shah son of Rashid Shah complained to the deceased about the said compromise which led to an exchange of hot words between the deceased and Arshad Shah.
3. At the trial, Nasir Khan PW 5 and Rehmat Ullah PW 6 appeared as eye-witnesses. They were disbelieved by the learned trial Court on the ground that they were interested and there were serious infirmities in their evidence. There was no corroboration of their testimony. They had been disbelieved against the co-accused and in the absence of corroboration it was not safe to act upon their evidence. There was no recovery from the respondent, and the recoveries made from the other accused were disbelieved.
4. It is contended that the learned trial Court vas influenced by the Judgment of the High Court passed in Crl. Appeal No. 81/1983 filed by Muhammad Rafique and failed to make on independent assessm ent of the prosecution evidence. The prosecution had examined two eye-witnesses whose evidence stood corroborated by the medical evidence and the abscondence of the respondent
5. The learned trial Court had held that the motive was neither established nor sufficient to commit the murder of Shan Khan deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to connect the respondent with the motive. He had nothing to do with the compromise between Din Muhammad and the complainant party. He was not even present when hot words were exchanged between Shan Khan and Arshad Shah. The learned trial Court has given cogent reasons for not accepting the motive. As regards ocular testimony Rehmat Ullah P.W.6 was inimical towards the respondent because he had got a criminal case registered against him under section 307 P.P.C. Before the incident. He is related to Nasir Khan P.W.5 (complainant). Both belong to the same brotherhood. In view of the enmity between the respondent and Rehmat Ullah he would not have escaped unhurt at the hands of the respondent and his companions if he had been actually present at the site.
Manzoor and Muhammad A.I, the other two eye-witnesses were not examined by the prosecution.
The abscondence of the respondent was not duly proved. No evidence was led to show that proceedings under section 87 Cr.P.C. For his arrest were initiated against him. Mere abscondence may not be sufficient to prove a murder charge. As already stated above the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution were disbelieved qua three other co-accused. There is no other piece of evidence to corroborate them. No recovery was made from the respondent.
S.A./N-300/L