' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---Mst. Naseem Begum widow of Muhammad Sharif aged 37 years was tried for the charge under section 302/436, P.P.C. By the learned Special Judge (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Faisalabad and was convicted and sentenced to death with a fine of Rs,20,000 or in default to undergo three years' R.I. Under section 302, P.P.C. She was separately convicted under section 436, P.P.C. And sentenced to ten years' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs, 10,060 or in default thereof to suffer two years' R.I. Vide judgment, dated 11-6-1990. The fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation.
2. The facts of the prosecution case as narrated by Nazar Hussain, P.W.10 are that on 11-9-1989 at about 2-00 p.m. He was standing at the corner of his street when Safdar Hussain, P.W.11 met him coming to see Muhammad Sharif deceased. In the meantime, on noticing flames of fire in the house of Muhammad Sharif deceased he with Safdar Hussain P.W. Rushed towards the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying burnt on his bed whereas the appellant having can P.1 in her hand with petrol smell was standing in the door of the room of the deceased. Both feet of the appellant were also burning. He alongwith his companions raised alarm and with the help of Mohalladars extinguished the fire. Muhammad Sharif deceased was removed to the Hospital in an unconscious condition and information was sent to his father in Chak No, 34/JB on the next day who lodged report Exh.P.I. With the police station recorded by Muhammad Anwar, S.I.
' The motive for the offence was that the deceased had contracted marriage with Mst. Naseem Bcgum ten years ago who was a woman of easy virtue. The deceased used to forbid her but she did not pay any heed. At 2/3 occasions the deceased gave beating to her for which reason, on the day of occurrence the appellant sprinkled petrol on the deceased and set his body on fire, resulting in his death.
3. Dr. Muhammad Aslam Randhawa, P.W.2 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased on 12-9-1989 at 2-00 p.m. And found the following injuries on his person:
(1) Burnt area over whole of back of chest and abdomen. Laterally both sides of abdomen were also burnt.
(2) Right arm and forearm were burnt, except 6 c.m. Front of right elbow and about 17 c.m. Anterior surface of right shoulder.
(3) Whole of back of left arm and forearm were burnt 14 c.m. x 5 c.m. Over back of left elbow.
(4) Whole of front of left arm was burnt except 18 c.m. x 4 c.m. Upper forearm and lower part of left arm.
(5) Whole face and forehead were burnt except chin.
(6) Whole of back of both thighs, lower part and legs were burnt.
(7) Whole area front of lower back of both legs was burnt and dorsal surface of both feet was also burnt.
(8) Middle part of testies was also burnt measuring 4 c.m. x 3 c.m. In his opinion the cause of death was due to burns.
4. Muhammad Anwar, S.I. P.W.12 after registration of case proceeded to the hospital and prepared injury statement Exh.P.C. And inquest report Exh.P.C./1 of Muhammad Sharif deceased. He took into possession plastic can P.1 through memo. Exh.P.G. Witnessed by Khurshid Malik and Muhammad Hanif P.Ws. Ashes P.2, pieces of bed P.3, pieces of foam P.4 and burnt clothes P.5 were taken into possession through a separate memo. Exh.P.H. He got the appellant medically examined from D.H.Q. Hospital, Faisalabad on 17-9-1989.
' Dr. Mubashir Asghar, P.W.2 medically examined the appellant and found the following injury on her person: "There was burnt area on the left and right foot both feet were involved. Dorsum side of both the feet was burnt."
' The injury was simple in nature and was the result of burn.
5. Nazar Hussain P.W.10 and Safdar Hussain P.W.11 appeared as eyewitnesses of the occurrence.
Sultan Ahmad father of the deceased appeared as P.W.9. The investigation was conducted by P.W.12. The prosecution relied on the ocular testimony, the motive, evidence of medical examination and recovery to establish the charge.
6. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded innocence. She took the plea that the deceased out of frustration committed suicide and she while making an attempt to save her life was also burnt.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the occurrence took place inside the house and was not witnessed by the P.Ws. The burnt injury on the person of the appellant supports the defence plea. It is also contended that the deceased out of frustration for the ill-attitude of his father with regard to the distribution of property committed suicide and the appellant was made a scapegoat to deprive her of the share in the property. It is next submitted that no evidence was brought on record to substantiate the motive part of the story. He further submits that the deceased was removed to the hospital by his neighbour namely Zulfiqar which fact demolished the story put forward by P.Ws.9 and 10.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the appellant was found carrying can P.1 with her when the deceased was lying burnt in his room. There was no third person in the house at that time which is a strong circumstance to establish the guilt of the appellant.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and considered the arguments and also perused the record carefully. The occurrence took place in the house where both deceased and the appellant were living together with no evidence of their strained relations or differences, except the statement of the father of the deceased. The contents of the F.I.R. Taking about the bad character of the appellant, the differences of spouses and annoyance of the deceased with the appellant on the issue are not supported by any substantive evidence on record. Nothing was brought on record to suggest that the appellant was carrying illicit relations with whom and at what time, place and manner she was found indulged in such like activities. General allegations of bad character cannot become the positive proof to believe the motive. Admittedly both the appellant and the deceased were living in the same house since long which fact sufficiently indicates that there was nothing serious between them.
10. Both Nazar Hussain, P.W.10 and Safdar Hussain P.W.11 claimed their presence at the spot and removed the deceased to hospital immediately after the occurrence but according to the statement of Dr. Muhammad Aslam Randhawa P.W.2 who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body, the deceased was admitted in the hospital through one Iftikhar son of Manzoor Ahmad of Mohallah Muhammadpura, Faisalabad. The names of both the P.Ws.
Nowhere appeared in any d6cument in the hospital which fact indicates that they did not remove the deceased to the hospital and their presence at the spot at the relevant time is not free from doubt. The hospital is at a short distance from the police station and the house of father of the deceased but none of the P.Ws. Reported the matter to the police or informed the hospital authorities about the occurrence. The complainant stated in the F.I.R. That he received information about the occurrence through the P.Ws., rather according to F.I.R., the P.Ws. Narrated the occurrence to him in the hospital on his arrival. It looks that the P.Ws. Purposely did not take any step in the matter and kept silent till the arrival of complainant. The silence of the P.Ws. Till next day of the occurrence is not meaningless in the circumstances of the case and creates a serious doubt about the correctness of the prosecution story.
11. From the facts of the case it appears that both the P.Ws. Did not reach at the spot till the removal of the deceased to the hospital, and were subsequently introduced as eye-witnesses. It was unnatural on the part of Nazar Hussain P.W.10, brother-in-law of the deceased that instead of reporting the matter to police he sent information to the complainant. This is a broad-day occurrence in the populated area and it is not believable that nobody except the P.Ws. Were attracted to the place of occurrence. Non-production of any witness from the Mohallah or the residents of adjoining houses makes the whole case doubtful. The appellant has given a different version of the occurrence stating that the deceased being annoyed with the attitude of his father over the matter of property out of frustration committed suicide by burning himself. There is no evidence to substantiate the frustration of the deceased but it seems that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as narrated by the P.Ws. Rather it looks that the deceased either for reason of frustration over the attitude of his father or his wife felt something and the possibility of exchanging hot words and views between the appellant and the deceased as husband and wife initiating the cause of committing suicide by the deceased cannot be ruled out. The burnt injury on the feet of the appellant speaks in favour of defence. If the petrol was sprinkled by the appellant as narrated by the P.Ws. There must have been burnt injuries also on the hands or other body from front side but there being no other injury on her body the explanation offered with regard to the receiving of injuries on the feet while making attempt to save the life of the deceased seems to be plausible and befitting in the circumstances of the case. While putting both stories in juxtaposition and reconstructing the scene, the story put by the appellant appeals to mind to be acceptable.
We, therefore, for the reasons discussed above, accept this appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and acquit her of the charge. She is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.