' This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 21-1-1988 passed by Sardar Ghulam Farid, Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,2,000, in default whereof to undergo one year's R.I. He was further directed to deposit a sum of Rs,20,000 to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in case of failure in its payment to further suffer imprisonment for six months.
2. Briefly the prosecution case is that P.W.15 Inayat Ali on 7-2-1984 at 9-30 p.m. At Sharifpura made his statement Exh.P.B. Before P.W.16 Muhammad Azam, A.S.I. To the effect that he was resident of Mohallah Rasoolpura in the area of village Dhulley and was a shopkeeper and on 7-2-1984 at about 9-00 a.m. Was present at his shop and received an information that in a wheat crop field adjacent to Rasoolpura some dead body was lying. The complainant alongwith his brother Mushtaq Ahmad P.W. (given up) resident of the Mohallah, reached the wheat crop field of one Muhammad Ajmal (not produced) and witnessed that a dead body of an unknown person aged about 21/22 years, wearing shirt, Shalwar of light Saleeti colour and was also having muffler, was lying with his mouth downward. The trunk of the neck of the said person had been cut with some sharp-edged weapon, and it was evident that some unknown person after murdering him had thrown him there.
3. The appellant alongwith the acquitted co-accused Muhammad Ayub alias Ayuba and one proclaimed offender Saifullah was challaned by the police. The proceedings against Saifullah were separated under section 512, Cr.P.C. A charge under section 302/34 was framed against the appellant and the acquitted co-accused Muhammad Ayub, to which they denied and claimed trial.
4. On 7-2-1984 at 3-00 a.m. Dr. Anjum Javed conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body and found the following injuries:--
(1) Incised wound 20 x 6 c.m. x bone deep front of neck at junction of chin with the neck, cutting the pharanx oesophagus and main vessles of neck.
(2) Incised wound 4 x 1/2 c.m. x muscle deep palm of left hand at the basis of middle and ring finger.
(3) Incised wound 1 x 1/2 c.m. At tip of left thumb.
' Injury No,1 was grievous, other were simple and were caused by sharp-edged weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death in this case was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injury No,1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem. The time between the injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem report was 12 hours. Exh.PA. Is the correct carbon copy of the post-mortem report.
5. The prosecution examined 18 P.Ws. In all to substantiate its case. P.W.9 Haji Khurshid Ahmad and P.W.10 Siraj Din stated about the making of extra-judicial confession by the appellant before them.
P.W.9 Haji Khurshid Ahmad stated that he was present at his house alongwith P.W.10 Siraj Din when the appellant reached there and stated that deceased Aziz-ur-Rehman was his friend and the appellant had taken a debt of Rs,1,48,000 on the security of the deceased and the appellant had to return the same in the instalments of Rs,4,000 per month. The appellant had further stated that he had also taken a loan of Rs,45,000 from Aziz-ur-Rehman deceased vide receipt executed by him (the said receipt was not produced) and to deprive the deceased of the aforementioned amounts the appellant had hatched up a plan with Muhammad Ayub (acquitted co-accused) and Saifullah absconder to commit the murder of Aziz-ur-Rehman and on the night between 6/7-2-1984 he brought the deceased where he was joined by his acquitted co-accused Muhammad Ayub and Saifullah who were armed with Chhuri and razor respectively and then carried the deceased on a false pretext of showing him a beautiful girl and took him to wheat field of the said Ilaqa. The appellant had further stated that he then held Aziz-ur-Rehman from his legs when Ayub gave him Chhuri blows and Saif Ullah then cut the throat with the razor and in consequence thereof the deceased succumbed to his injuries in the field. The appellant had further told P.W.9 aid P.W.10 that the police was harassing the people and the appellant wanted that he should be produced before the police. Thereafter, the appellant was produced by P.W.9 before P.W.18 Nazir Ahmad. P.W.10 Skaj Din had corroborated the statement of P.W.9, but he was not present at the time when the appellant was produced before P.W.18 by P.W.9.
6. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant was earlier suspected in the present case and after his personal remand he was got discharged by the police and after about 2 years and one month the appellant had allegedly made extra-judicial confession before P.W.9 and P.W.10. P.W.8 Obaid-ur-Rehman stated that on 3-3-1986 the S.H.O. Had interrogated the appellant in his presence who made a disclosure and led to the recovery of watch P.8 from the house allegedly of the deceased, which was secured by the S.H.O. Vide memo. Exh.P.G. Attested by P.W.8 Obaid-ur- Rehman and P.W. Sher Muhammad (given up). P.W.13 Tahir Mahmud had stated that he had witnessed the appellant and the acquitted co-accused Muhammad Ayub standing with the deceased and they wanted some amount from the deceased and had met P.W.13 Tahir Mahmud and had also met with Inam Rabbani (not produced) alongwith the appellant. The said Inam Rabbani had contacted the deceased and had conveyed him the message of his father and on inquiry of P.W.13, Inam Rabbani had told him that the deceased had informed him that he would return after about half an hour and thereafter Aziz-ur-Rehman was not seen by him.
7. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution evidence against him and had stated that the deceased was on friendly terms with him, who had many more friends and was leading an immoral life and used to visit redlight area in Lahore. His father had contracted second marriage and step-mother of the deceased used to maltreat him as a result of which he used to remain and stay out of his house. For that purpose he had involved himself in so many troubles and so was done to death by some one and since the appellant had obtained a loan from the deceased and because of the same had been falsely implicated. The loan amount was received from the appellant by the father of the deceased during investigation of this case and he was also found innocent and was let off by the police. The father of the deceased wished to further extort some amount from the appellant, to which he did not agree and the same led to his false involvement in the present case. The appellant had not produced any evidence in defence.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel and have perused the record. The only evidence against the appellant was in the shape of circumstantial evidence, i,e. Extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W.9 and P.W.10. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.9 and P.W.10 are residents of Gujranwala City, where the occurrence took place and the appellant had allegedly made extra-judicial confession before them after about 2- 1/2 years of the present occurrence. The appellant was once arrested by the police in the present case under section 54, Cr.P.C. And after thorough investigation he was got discharged by the police. The other aspect of the evidence against the appellant was in the shape of alleged recovery of watch P.8 allegedly belonging to the deceased. The recovery of watch P.8 was effected on 3-3-1986 after about 2 years and 2 months of the alleged occurrence and only P.W.17 Fazal Rehman, father of the deceased had stated that watch P.8 belonged to the deceased. No receipt or other evidence was produced by the prosecution to establish that watch P.81A belonged to the deceased.
9. After careful perusal of the record and giving anxious consideration to the arguments of the parties and the circumstances appearing in the case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant. Giving him the benefit of doubt, I acquit him of the charge. The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are discharged.