MIAN ABDUL KHALIQ, J.- Liaqat Ali son of Fazal Muhammad aged 28 years was tried for the murder of Mst. Sakina Bibi, his wife and was convicted and sentenced under section 302 P.P.C, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide his impugned judgment dated 29.9.1988 to undergo imprisonment for life and a i.e of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof to suffer one year R.I. The i.e, if realized, half of it was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased excluding the appellant.
2. The prosecution case as unfolded in the F.I.R. Exh.pC/1 recorded by P.W.6 Riaz Ahmad, M.H.C. On the basis of a complaint Exh.PC made by P.W.7 Noor Muhammad complainant and reduced into writing by P.W.10 Ghulam Abbas, S.H.O, on 18.10.1986 is to the effect that he was residing in Mohallah Raza Abad, Faisalabad along with his family and about 4 years earlier to the present occurrence her deceased daughter Mst. Sakina Bibi was married with the appellant. The deceased lived happily for one year with her husband and thereafter a dispute arose and on two/:here occasions she had come to the house of her parents and on the intervention of the elders she was sent repeatedly to the house of her in-laws and about 1 months earlier to the present occurrence the deceased had again come back to the house of P.W.7 Noor Muhammad along with her 2 years old son and had pregnancy of about 8 months and again on the asking of the elders she was sent to the house of her in-laws. On the day of occurrence P.W.7 Noor Muhammad went from Faisalabad to Dichotic to see his brother-in-law P.W.8 Muhammad Sharif and daughter Mst. Sakina Bibi. At about 2.00 p.m. P.W.7 Noor Muhammad along P.W. Baoo (given up) and P.W.8 Muhammad Sharif was sitting in the house of P.W.8, when suddenly they heard alarm from the house of the deceased and all the above 3 P.Ws reached the house of the deceased and witnessed the appellant giving chhuri blows to the deceased and within their sight the appellant gave on the upper side of the abdomen a Chhuri blow to the deceased, who fell down and on the fallen deceased the appellant inflicted chhuri blow which landed between the abdomen and the thigh. The third chhuri blow was given by the appellant on the right thigh, the fourth blow hit on the right side of her chest and the fifth on the left had, which landed between the fingers and the thumb. The occurrence was witnessed by the P.Ws. On witnessing the P.Ws the appellant while brandishing the chhuri escaped.
3. The motive behind the occurrence was that there was a dispute between the deceased and the appellant on account of the ornaments which were with the deceased and due to said grievance she was done to death. The appellant was challaned and sent up for trial. A charge under section 302 P.P.C, was framed, to which he denied and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined 10 P.Ws in all to substantiate its case. P. Ws.7 and 8 stated the ocular account, whereas P.W.1 Dr. Muhammad Amal Mian conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.10 stated about the recovery aspect of the case, whereas Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Muhammad, P.Ws were given up by the prosecution as having been won over. The report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.PM and that of the Serologist Exh.PO are positive respectively.
5. The appellant when examined under section, 342 Cr.P.C, denied the prosecution evidence as well as the recovery, of bloodstained Chhuri P.5 at his instance. In answer to the question "why this case against you and why the P.Ws deposed against you?" he made a very elaborating reply and stated that at the relevant time he was present at his shop of tailoring and in his absence, his mother and the deceased wife quarrelled with each other and at that time his younger brother Muhammad Shafi was also present who sided with his mother. The deceased gave Danda blows to the mother of the appellant and in retaliation the mother and younger brother of the appellant Muhammad Shafi gave Chhuri and hatchet blows to the deceased resulting in her death. The mother and younger brother of the appellant escaped and could not be traced out and arrested. The appellant was falsely involved. He neither made statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2) Cr.P.C, nor produced evidence in defence.
6. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that the appellant was innocent. The eyewitnesses P. Ws.7 and 8 were not present at the spot and they had not witnessed the occurrence and moreover, the deceased was done to death by the mother and brother of the appellant. The ocular account is not in consonance with the medical evidence. The recovery has been planted and not proved on record. The learned counsel appearing for the State has controverted the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and has stated that it was a broad day occurrence and P.W.8 is the real paternal uncle of the deceased and his statement cannot be thrown away or brushed aside.
7. F.I.R. Exh. PC/1 recorded on the statement of P.W.7 Noor Muhammad contains that the appellant had given 5 injuries with the Chhuri to the deceased. P.W.7 Noor Muhammad and P.W.8 Muhammad Sharif also specifically stated in their statements before the trial Court that the deceased was given 5 Chhuri blows by the appellant. P.W.1 Dr. Muhammad Amal Mian who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased had found 16 injuries on the person of the deceased i.e. 13 stab wounds and three incised wounds. All the injuries were caused with sharp edged pointed weapon. P. Ws.7 and 8 specifically stated that they reached the place of occurrence on the alarm of the deceased and within their sight the appellant caused 5 Chhuri blows to the deceased. P.W.10 Ghulam Abbas, S.H.O./I.O. Who prepared the injury statement Exh.PF and inquest report Exh.PG had also found 5 injuries on the person of the deceased. P.W.1 Dr. Muhammad Amal Mian opined that all the injuries were ante mortem. It is surprising that although the injury statement, and the inquest report contains 5 injuries as well as it was stated so by the P.Ws and S.H.O (P.W.10) in their statements, but the Doctor (P.W.1) had found 16 injuries on the person of the deceased. No doubt it is a broad day occurrence. P.W.7 is father of the deceased, whereas P.W.8 is the paternal uncle of the appellant, but their statements are not in consonance with the medical evidence furnished on record by the statement of P.W.1, which clearly prove that P.W.7 and P.W.8 had not witnessed the occurrence, otherwise they would have stated about the receipt of 16 injuries by the deceased. I am unable to understand under what circumstances inquest report (Exh.PG) and injury statement (Exh.PF) was prepared by P.W.10, which also clearly contradicts the statement of P.W.1. It has been established beyond doubt that the occurrence was neither witnessed by P.W.7 and P.W.8 nor they were present at the relevant time.
8. The learned counsel for the State also contended that the appellant had led to the recovery of bloodstained Chhuri P.5 from his house on the day he was arrested i.e. 22.10.1986, which was secured by P.W.10 vide memo Exh.PJ attested by P.Ws. Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Muhammad (both given up as won over). The alleged occurrence took place on 18.10.1986, the appellant escaped from the scene with Chhuri P.5. It is the philosophy of an accused that he would destroy every evidence against him, but in the instant case he is alleged to have concealed Chhuri P.5 in his house. The recovery evidence is only considered as a corroborative piece of evidence.
Muhammad Ashraf and Ghulam Muhammad, P. Ws (public witnesses) were not willing to support the prosecution and they were given up. The ocular account furnished by the statements of P. Ws.7 and 8 have already been disbelieved by this Court. The conviction cannot be based on the recovery aspect only. The ocular testimony is contradictory and in conflict with the medical evidence, which is not confidence inspiring.
9. Pursuant to the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt against the appellant and giving him benefit of doubt I acquit him of the charge. The appellant is in jail, who shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.