' One Saleem had been tried by a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Chiniot alongwith Ashraf, Sarfraz, Nusrat, Ahmad Khan, Khizar. Hayat and Muhammad Yaqoob, for the murder of one Naik Muhammad. Saleem was the only one found guilty of the charge and after being convicted under section 302, P.P.C. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs,30,000 or three years'
R.I. In default. The entire amount of fine was directed to be paid to the heirs of Naik Muhammad deceased, as compensation under section 544-A of the Cr.P.C. All the remaining accused had been acquitted. Through the present appeal, the said Muhammad Saleem impugns the above- noticed conviction and sentences recorded against him.
2. The occurrence in question had taken place on the night between 12th and 13th of December, 1986 at the Dera of the deceased in the area of Chak No,249 within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bhawana of District Jhang. The same had been reported at the said police station the next morning at 5-10 a.m. By one Kambir who was a paternal-uncle of Naik Muhammad deceased.
3. The said complainant had alleged that on the night of occurrence he alongwith his brother Shameer, Naik Muhammad deceased and others, was sitting at his Dhari at about 10-00 p.m. When Major Mureed Sultan, Khizar Hayat, Ahmad Khan, Muhammad Yaqoob and Nusrat, all armed with guns, emerged there whereafter, Major Mureed Sultan accused inquired from Naik Muhammad deceased about his father and asked him to bring him out but on their failure to find said Shameer, Major Mureed Sultan asked his companions to. Kill Naik Muhammad deceased at which, Khizar Hayat accused fired a shot which hit the front of Naik Muhammad's chest who fell there and died.
4. The complainant had further disclosed that Major Mureed Sultan had a dispute regarding some agricultural land with one Soobaidar Kambir Khan; that the complainant and his brother Shameer used to cultivate the land of the said Soobaidar as his tenants; that Major Mureed Sultan was aggrieved of the fact that the complainant and his brother used to help the said Soobaidar in the matter of this dispute and further that it was on account of this grievance that the said accused persons had done the deceased to death.
5. Having been investigated by the local police, the case was finally entrusted to one Abdul Majeed, D.S.P. Of the Provincial Crimes Branch for investigation who took over the said exercise on 23-4- 1989 i,e. About two and a half years after the occurrence. He found all the above-described accused persons who had been nominated in the F.I.R. As innocent and on the strength of a supplementary statement made by Kambir complainant, Ghulam Shabbir (P.W.9), Niaz, Zafar and Aslam, came to the conclusion that the murder in question had been committed by Saleem appellant, Ashraf and Sarfraz accused.
6. Saleem appellant was consequently arrested on 26-10-1991 while Sarfraz and Ashraf had been arrested on 20-10-1991 and 6-11-1991, respectively. The appellant had also allegedly led to the recovery of a gun.
7. The only evidence available against Saleem appellant was the statements of Ghulam Shabbir (P.W.9), Gul Muhammad (P.W.11) and Mansha (P.W.12) who had claimed that Saleem appellant had made extrajudicial confession to them in the year 1991 i,e. About five years after the occurrence in question.
8. No corroboration at all is available on record in support of these extra-judicial confessions and in the circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant on the mere evidence of extra judicial confession allegedly made by him before these three unconcerned persons and that also about five years after the occurrence.
9. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 1-9-1992 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Chiniot regarding the conviction and sentence above-noticed against Saleem appellant is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required to be detained in any other case.
10. It may be mentioned here that it was while hearing Saleem appellant's petition for suspension of sentence and considering that only a short question was involved, I inquired from the learned counsel for the appellant whether she would be prepared to argue the main appeal. On her reply in the affirmative, the learned State counsel also expressed his willingness to argue the main appeal.
It was in these circumstances, that I have disposed of this appeal today which has been allowed in the above terms.