Muhammad Yar alias Ahmad Yar son of Gul Muhammad (25/26), Gul Muhammad son of Sher Muhammad (50/55), Muhammad Yar alias Allah Yar son of Manzoor (25/27) and Allah Bakhsh son of Mahboob (29/30) were tried for the murders of Muhammad Nawaz and Mst. Ghulam Bivi and for murderously assaulting Mst. Hayatan and Mst. Wallan P.Ws. By judgment dated .18-5-1991 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha convicted all of them under section 302/307/34, P.P.C.
And sentenced them to imprisonment for life on two counts under section 302/34, P.P.C. Plus a fine of Rs.1fl,000 or in default to undergo two years' S.I. Each for the murder of Muhammad Nawaz and Mst. Ghulam Bivi. Half of the fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Under section 307/34, P.P.C. They were sentenced to seven years' R.I. And a fine of Rs:3,000 or in default to undergo one year's S.I. Each for murderously assaulting Mst. Hayatan and Mst. Wallan P.Ws. Half of the fine was ordered to be paid as compensation to the injured P.W.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also given to them.
Muhammad Yar alias Ahmad Yar son of Gul Muhammad and. Gul Muhammad son of Sher Muhammad have filed Criminal Appeal No.529 of 1991 through Mr. Masood Mirza, Advocate, Muhammad Yar alias Allah Yar son of Manzoor has filed Criminal Appeal No.564 of 1991 through Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, Advocate while Allah Bakhsh son of Mahboob has filed appeal through jail. All of them shall be disposed of by this order.
2. The prosecution case is that on 5-9-1989 Muhammad Nawaz and Ghulam Bivi deceased, Mst.
Hayatan and Mst. Wallan (injured) were present in their house with Ghulam Muhammad P.W.7. In the meantime, Muhammad Yar alias Kaka, Gul Muhammad and Ahmad Yar son of Manzoor and Allah Bakhsh son of Mahboob carrying guns came to the roof of the adjoining house. Muhammad Yar alias Kaka raised a Lalkara that they had come to avenge their insult and fired at Muhammad Nawaz deceased hitting him on the forehead. Second shot was fired, by Gul Muhammad hitting Mst. Ghulam Bivi deceased on the chest. Allah Bakhsh fired at Wallan P.W. On her face. Allah Yar fired at Mst. Hayatan P.W. Hitting her on right shoulder. On the alarm, raised by the P.Ws. The appellants ran away. Muhammad Nawaz and Ghulam Bivi succumbed to the injuries.
3. The motive for the offence was that the appellants who were closely related inter se suspected Imam Bakhsh son of Muhammad Nawaz deceased and Mst. Hayatan P.W. Of maintaining illicit intimacy with Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Gul Muhammad appellant. Ahmad Yar appellant is son of Gul Muhammad, Muhammad Yar and Allah Bakhsh are nephews of Gul Muhammad.
4. Ghulam Muhammad P.W. Reported the matter to Police Station Jhal Chakkian, District Sargodha vide F.I.R. Exh.P.O. Recorded by S.I. Muhammad Anwar P.W.11 on 5-9-1989 at 5-00 a.m.
5. After recording the F.I.R. S.I. Muhammad Anwar proceeded to the spot and prepared the injury statement and inquest reports of the two deceased, and effected recoveries from the spot. He arrested Allah Bakhsh on 4-10-1989 and recovered gun P.14 and cartridges P.15/1-2 from his possession near Railway Phatak, vide memo. Exh.P.Q.
6. Nazar Muhammad A.S.I. Arrested Muhammad Yar son of Gul Muhammad accused on 26-11-1989.
On 2-12-1989 Muhammad Yar alias Ahmad Yar Kaka led to the recovery of gun P.8 and three live cartridges Exh.P.9/1-3 from his house through memo. Exh.P.H. On the same day Muhammad Yar alias Allah Yar son of Manzoor led to the recovery of gun P.10 alongwith two live cartridges P.I1/1-2 from his house through memo Exh.P.J. On that very day Gul Muhammad appellant led to the recovery of gun P.12 and two live cartridges P.13/1-2 through memo. Exh.P.K. Attested by Allah Ditta and Mumtaz Ahmad P.Ws. (not examined).
7. Dr. Shahid Manzoor P.W.1 examined Mst. Wallan P.W. And found 4 injuries on her person. Three of them were caused by fire-arm while the 4th was caused with blunt weapon. The injuries were simple in nature.
8. He also examined Mst. Hayatan P.W. Widow of Muhammad Nawaz deceased and found two fire- arm injuries on her person.
9. Dr. Hafeez-ur-Rehman P.W.4 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Nawaz deceased and found four fire-arm injuries on his person which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable duration between the injuries and death was immediate.
He also conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Ghulam Bivi wife of Allah Ditta and found four fire-arm injuries thereon. She died of the cumulative affect of the said injuries. The duration between the injuries and death was immediate.
10. To prove the occurrence the prosecution examined Ghulam Muhammad P.W.7 and Mst.
Hayatan P.W.8. Mst. Wallan was not examined. Both the eye-witnesses gave the same details of the occurrence as are mentioned above.
11. Nazar Muhammad S.I. P.W.6, Habib Ullah A.S.I. P.W.10 and Muhammad Anwar Khan S.I. P.W.11 proved the recoveries of guns and cartridges from the appellants.
12. The appellants denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence and attributed the case to enmity. They examined Muhammad Pervaiz Iqbal, Inspector Range Crimes Sargodha in their defence. Appearing As D.W.1 he stated that the investigation of the case was entrusted to him by D.I.-G. Sargodha and that both the parties had appeared before him. According to him he was of the view that the complainant and the injured eye--witnesses were asleep at the time of occurrence and that Muhammad Yar, Gul Muhammad and Muhammad Yar alias Allah Yar were innocent and that he k had recommended their discharge from the case. He further opined that the recoveries were fake.
13. It is contended that the appellants had no direct motive against the deceased and the injured P.Ws. According to the prosecution Imam Bakhsh son of Muhammad Nawaz deceased was suspected of maintaining illicit intimacy with Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Gul Muhammad. Although it appears from the statement of Mst. Hayatan P.W.8 that Imam Bakhsh was also present at the spot at the relevant time, the appellants did not attack him. It is next contended that Ghulam Muhammad P.W. Was not a resident of the house where the occurrence in question had taken place and although according to the eye-witnesses a lot of people from the adjoining Abadis had collected at the spot, no one was examined. Ghulam Muhammad P.W.7 is stated to be closely related to the deceased. He is real brother of Mst. Hayatan widow of Muhammad Nawaz deceased and is son of Mst. Wallan P.W. The recoveries are also assailed on the ground that they do not connect the appellants with the crime.
14. According to the prosecution the appellants suspected Imam Bakhsh son of Muhammad Nawaz deceased of maintaining illicit intimacy with Mst. Shahnaz daughter of Gul Muhammad but no independent evidence was led in this behalf. Had it been so, Gul Muhammad and other appellants would not have spared Imam Bakhsh. It is not understandable as to why he was spared and instead his father and other relatives were made the target. There were two deceased persons and two injured P.Ws. One fire each has been attributed to the appellants. They are alleged to have caused separate injuries to each of the two deceased and the injured P.Ws. The possibility of less than four accused taking part in the occurrence by firing more than one shot cannot be excluded.
There is a conflict between the ocular and the medical evidence. According to the eye-witnesses the firing was made from a distance of 30/40 feet but the blackening found on the wounds of the deceased belies their version Muhammad Anwar Khan S.I. P.W.11 had arrested only Allah Bakhsh and could not draw any conclusion regarding other accused. According to Muhammad Pervaiz Iqbal, Inspector, three of the accused were innocent and he recommended their discharge.
15. In the above circumstances a strong corroboration was required of the eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution but that is not forthcoming. The recoveries of guns are without any significance because no crime empty was recovered from the spot with which they could match.
The public witnesses who attested the recoveries were given up by the prosecution and only police officials were examined.
16. For the foregoing reasons the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I accept the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants and acquit them by giving them the benefit of doubt. They shall be released forthwith, provided they are not required to be detained in any other case.
N.H.Q./M-471/L