' Vide short order, dated 7th of December, 1988, the appeal preferred by the appellants was allowed, and their convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were ordered -to be released. Detailed reasons for the acceptance of this appeal are as under:
2. The appellants Muhammad Ismail aged 60 years, Rehmat son of Muhammad Ismail aged 35 years, and their relations Muhammad Ashraf son of Salam along with Mst. Faheeman aged 50 years wife of Muhammad Ismail and mother of Rehmat and Khurshid Bibi aged about 18 years daughter of appellant Ismail were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gujranwala on the charge under section 302/148/149 read with section 201, P.P.C. For having committed the murder of Muhammad Aslam deceased. Vide judgment, dated 17th of October, 1987, the learned trial Judge acquitted the co-accused namely Mst. Faheeman and Mst. Khurshid Bibi, but found the appellants guilty on the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. And convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay fine of Rs,5,000 each, or in default of the payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for case year each. The appellants were also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs,5,000 under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the father of the deceased, or in default thereof, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The charge under section 201, P.P.C. Had failed.
3. Aggrieved by their conviction and sentences, the appellants have preferred this appeal, which shall be disposed of through this judgment.
4. F.LR. Exh.PA./1 was lodged with the police by Faiz Ahmad father of the deceased Muhammad Aslam on 18-5-1986, and it was stated therein, that the deceased Muhammad Aslam was married to Khurshid Bibi the acquitted co-accused, and in exchange of this marriage, Mst. Wakilan a sister of the deceased was married to Muhammad Jamil a brother of Mst. Khurshid Bibi. It was further stated by Faiz Ahmad that Khurshid Bibi was having illicit relation with the co-accused Ashraf, and as such, she was not willing to live with the deceased Muhammad Aslam, and thus, used to reside with her parents. On account of such conduct of Mst. Khurshid Bibi, it was stated that a month before the occurrence, Mst. Wakilan was also brought by her parents to their house. The appellants then approached Faiz Ahmad father of the deceased in his village Jokalian in Tehsil Phalia District Gujrat for the return of Mst. Wakilan, and in presence of Muhammad Shafi, Ali Ahmad and Muhammad Ali residents of the said village, the parties exchanged hot words and it was alleged that the deceased was threatened with dire consequence, but thereafter, a reconciliation had taken place with the result that the next morning, Mst. Wakilan shall be restored with the undertaking, that Mst. Khurshid Bibi shall also be sent to the house of Muhammad Aslam deceased.
After some days, the deceased along with his father Faiz Ahmad went to the house of appellants to bring back Mst. Khurshid Bibi, but the appellants through deceit made the deceased to stay with them, while his father was sent back. The deceased did not return to his house, and then, his mother Mst. Sharifan approached the appellants to find out her son, but she was stated that the deceased had left the house of the appellants. Mst. Sharifan allegedly suspected some foul game, and thus, returned to her own village, and apprised her husband about this mischief. Thereafter, the complainant and Shafi alongwith others approached the appellants in their village, but the appellants expressed their ignorance, and stated that the deceased had left their house. Then in these circumstances, suspecting that their son had been murdered, the complainant lodged the complaint, and initially the case was registered under section 364, P.P.C. Read with section 147/148, P.P.C. But subsequent thereto, when it came to light, that the deceased Muhammad Aslam had been murdered, the police registered the case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C.
5. During the interrogation, the acquitted co-accused informed the police, that the deceased had been murdered. Thus, on 1-6-1986, Riaz Ahmad, Inspector Police P.W.10 arrested the appellants, Ismail, Rehmat and Ashraf.
6. On 11-6-1986 appellant Rehmat while in custody led the police and got a blood-stained Chhuri P.1 recovered from the Patri of a canal, the same was taken into possession, vide memo. Exh.P.B. The same day, appellant Rehmat while in custody led the police and got a Parna of the deceased P.4 recovered from his residential house, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. On the same day, appellant Rehmat while in custody pointed out the place on the pavement of the canal, from where, the blood-stained earth was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. On the same day, the appellant Ashraf while in custody led the police and got recovered a Bugda P.2 from a deserted place near the pavement of Upper Chanab Canal. Which was taken into possession, vide memo. Exh.P.C. On the same day, the appellant Rehmat also got recovered a pair of shoes P.3/1 to 2 of the deceased from the house of Ismail appellant, and the same was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. Appellant Ashraf also pointed out the place of occurrence.
7. The blood-stained earth, Chhuri, Bugda and Parna were sent to the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist, and according to the report of the Serologist, all these articles were stained with human blood vide memo. Exh.P.J. The prosecution also placed reliance upon the testimony of Rukan Din P.W.5, in whose presence, it is alleged that the appellants had confessed their guilt. P.W.5 Rukan Din stated that he was present in the Baithak of his house, and at about 5-00 p.m., the appellants Ismail, Rehmat and Ashraf approached him one after the other, and confessed to have committed the murder of Muhammad Aslam deceased, and also to have cut his body into pieces, and to have thrown the said pieces of body in the Upper Chanab Canal. According to P.W.5 the appellants wanted him to help for a compromise with the father of the deceased Faiz Ahmad, but the witness refused to do so and offered to produce them before the police, and on the next day, he took the appellants to Police Station Kamoki.
8. P.W.6 Mst. Sharifan mother of the deceased appeared in the witness-box, and repeated the version given by the complainant.
9. All Ahmad P.W.7 supported the prosecution case, and stated that a Punchayat had been convened at the instance of Faiz Ahmad, and he was approached to help for the restoration of Mst.
Wakilan, and in the aforesaid Punchayat hot words were exchanged, and the deceased was threatened with dire consequences. The witness further deposed that the parties had then reconciled and Mst. Wakilan was restored with the condition that Mst. Khurshid Bibi shall also be sent back to her husband Muhammad Aslam deceased. The witness also stated that Mst. Wakilan was sent with the accused on the next morning, and thereafter, the deceased and his father had gone to the house of the appellants to bring back Mst. Khurshid Bibi, but the appellants made the lame excuses.
10. The appellants during their examination under sections 340 and 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the charge.
Appellant Ismail raised the following plea: "My son Yasin was married with Jamila daughter of Faiz Ahmad. The said Jamila died, and after her death, a dispute arose in respect of the return of dowry's articles, which led to the strained relations between the parties. Faiz Ahmad had taken away Mst. Wakilan to his house, and insisted to get divorce for her. Deceased Muhammad Aslam was a person of shady and inunoral character, and had been carrying on illicit relations with one Khalida of his village, and had disappeared from the village to create problems for the appellants. The deceased had visited their house, and after passing a night there had left for his own village."
11. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the State, I have carefully perused the entire record, and have heard the various contentions raised by them.
12. At the very outset, I am of the view, that the motive as sought to be set up by the prosecution in this case, does not at all, inspire confidence, inasmuch as, after the restoration of Mst. Wakilan a sister of the deceased, there could have been no reason to murder the deceased, because the parties after exchanging of hot words had reconciled their differences. Dead body of the deceased was not found in this case, and the only evidence which requires consideration is the extra-judicial confession. Rukan Din P.W.5 is the witness of extra-judicial confession. Rukan Din is a resident of Jandiala Road in District Sheikhupura, whereas, the parties belong to District Gujrat, and no reason exists on the record, as to why the appellants had gone there for making extra-judicial confession before Rukan Din. Assuming that such extra-judicial confession was made, then it was to he corroborated. As far as corroboration is concerned, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the recoveries of blood-stained Chhuri, Bugda, Parna and the blood-stained earth. The occurrence had taken place 15/20 days before 18-51986, whereas, the recoveries had been effected on 11-6- 1986, this would mean that these recoveries were effected after about two months of the occurrence. In this view of the matter, I am not prepared to believe that the blood-stained earth would have been found after two months of the occurrence, and similarly, bloodstains could not remain on Bugda, Chhuri and Parna. Recovery of shoes is neither here, nor there. Hence, I am not prepared to believe these recoveries as corroborative evidence. Parties are also closely linked with each other, because another daughter of Faiz Ahmad namely Jamila (since dead) had been married to the son of appellant Ismail. It seems that only on account of strained relations, the appellants were falsely implicated in this case. Suspicion however much strong may be, cannot be established without corroboration which in this case is lacking. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has not been able to bring guilt home to the appellants. Resultantly, this appeal must succeed, and the same is hereby allowed. Sentences and convictions of the appellants are set aside. They shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.