JUDGMENT RAJA ABDUL AZIZ BHATTI, J.- This is an appeal against the judgment dated 05.09.1984 passed by Addl: Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment thereof two years further R.I. He has been given benefit under Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Mst. Sajida real sister of the deceased Mst. Surraya Bibi lodged report with the Police of P.S. Sheikhupura that on 13.7.1982 at 9.00 A.M. In the house at Chak No. 21/UCC within the area of Police Station Sharqpur District Sheikhupura, the appellant Rafaqat Ali, while armed with hatchet committed murder of Mst. Surraya, his step mother.
The motive for the offence narrated in the FIR is that Muhammad Khan father of Rafaqat Ali divorced Rafaqat's mother about 14 years ago and married Mst. Surraya deceased, who started living with her husband at Chak No. 21/UCC. The accused and Mst. Sajida, the complainant who is sister of the deceased were also living with them. The convict was enjoyed with the step-mother over her marriage with his father and had occasionally quarreled with her. It is also mentioned in the FIR that a day prior of the occurrence a quarrel had taken place between the deceased and the convict/appellant, however no report to this effect was lodged in the Police Station. On the day of occurrence at about 9.00 A.M. Mst. Surraya Bibi was sleeping under a tree in the Courtyard of her house, while Mst. Sajida PW2 was present there. Rafaqat Ali accused, as alleged while armed with hatchet came there and inflicted a few blows with it and caused favel injuries to the deceased on her head. Mst. Sajida raised hue and cry, on which PW 3 Bashir and PW 4 Nazir besides others also attracted to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. On arrival of the aforesaid witnesses the convict escaped. Mst. Surraya Bibi died on the spot as a result of the injuries caused to her.
3. On the registration of case by Rana Muhammad Naseem, SHO, he took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence, where he was the dead body of Mst. Surraya Bibi lying murdered in the Courtyard of her house at Chak No. 21/UCC. He prepared injury statement Ex.P.G, and inquest report Ex.P-B. The dead body was made over to Muhammad Bashir and Muhammad Anwar F.Cs.
For haring the postmortem. He also took into possession blood stained earth and made it into sealed parcel ride Memo:Ex.P-H. He also prepared rough plan ExP-J and examined witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C, on the same day. He also took into possession last worn clothes of the deceased, which were produced before him after post-mortem examination by the aforesaid Muhammad Bashir, Constable.
4. Rafaqat Ali, accused was arrested on 16.07.1982. He was interrogated by the investigating officer.
At his instance, blood stained hatchet P-5 was recovered and taken into possession by the investigating officer vide Memo: Ex.P-E. Rough plan of the place of recovery was prepared, which is Ex. P-E/l. Rab Nawaz, Draftman prepared scaled site plan of the place of occurrence on the pointation and direction of the Police and witnesses. During investigation, he was found guilty and as such challan was submitted to the Court for trial. According to the report, there are following for injuries on the person of the deceased:-
(1) An incised wound 15cm x 2 cm x cutting the skull through and through on the right side of head.
(2) Whole of the neck was cust exeat 6cm tag of skin on the left side of neck.
(3) An incised wound. 3 cm x 1 cm x skin deep on the left shoulder.
(4) An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x skin deep, 3 cm medial to injury No. 3.
5. According to the Doctor injuries No. 1 & 2 collectively were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Other injuries No. 3&4 were simple in nature. All the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon. According to the Doctor the death was instantaneous.
6. The prosecution produced 8 \witnesses. They included Sajida PW2, Bashir PW3, and Nazir Ahmad PW4, who as per version of the prosecution were eye witnesses of the occurrence. Dr. Muhammad'
Aslam, who conducted autopsy, appeared as PW1.-Muhammad Ibrahim H.C. Received 2 sealed parcels, blood stained earth and blood stained hatchet from the investigating officer for their safe custody in the Malkhana. Later on he passed these parcels intact to Muhammad Bashir F.C. For delivery in the office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore for report. Rab Nawaz, Draftman, PW-7 appeared in the Court to prove the site plan Ex.P-F and P-F.1. Rana Muhammad Nazeem, Inspector PW-8 deposed regarding the investigation carried out by him.
7. Rafaqat Ali convict/appellant on his arrest was interrogated. He denied the motive and also refused to admit that he murdered the deceased. He also refused the recovery of hatchet.
According to him hatchet was planted on him by the ^investigating officer to strengthen the prosecution case. He further stated that the deceased was were of one Bashir resident of Mouza Pandu, District Gujrany/ala. She eloped with his father and married him without obtaining divorce form ber previous husband- He alleged that his father turned out his real mother and the children.
They, therefore, shifted to Village Kot Mehr Ali Murallee, - District Gujranwala and started living there. The defence of the appellant is that Mst. Surraya Bibi was infact murdered at the instance of her previous husband and it was un-seen occurrence but he was involved falsely in the case.
8. During the trial PW3 stated that on hearing alarm he went to the place of occurrence but when he reached there he saw Mst Surraya lying dead in her court yard, while Rafaqat Ali accused was leaving the place of occurrence. He also stated that at that time Rafaqat Ali was empty handed but a blood stained hatchet was lying on the ground near the deceased. According to him Sajida PW told him that Mst. Surraya deceased had been murdered by Rafaqat Ali accused with hatchet.
In cross examination he stated that the did not see the accused inflicting injuries to the deceased.
The prosecution did not declare him hostile inspite of the fact that his name was mentioned as an eye witness in the first information report.
9. PW4, Nazir Ahmad, when appeared in the Court, he stated that he was present in his land at the time of occurrence, where he learned about the murder of Mst. Surraya. He did not see the incident and he categorically stated that Rafaqat Ali accused never inflicting injuries to the deceased in his presence. He further stated that hatchet was not recovered from Rafaqat Ali appellant. He also deposed that infact the hatchet was supplied by them to the investigating officer on his asking for planting on the accused. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and xxx allowed to be examined by DDA. In cross examination by DDA, he admitted that Mst. Surraya deceased was his aunt and from xxx brother-hood, though he also admitted that Rafaqat Ali xxxxxxx was his cousin being a son of his real maternal uncle. In cross examination by the defence counsel, he stated that incident of murder took place during night and he suspected that Mst. Surraya deceased was murdered at the instance of her first husband. All others are formal prosecution witnesses.
10 As for as PW8 Rana Muhammad Naseem, Inspector/SHO is concerned, he recorded the FIR, inspected the site, prepared injury statement, inquest report and the dead body was sent for post mortem examination, blood stained earth was also removed and sealed' into parcel and seized vide Memo:Ex.P-H. He stated that blood stained hatchet P-5 was recovered at the instance of appellant. Blood stained earth and blood stained hatchet were sent to office of the Chemical Examiner, Lahore.
11. After recording the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, examined the appellant under Section 342 Cr. P.C. In that' statement, he denied that Mst. Sajida complainant was living in Chak No. 21/UCC. According to him, she was resident of Ratta Thothran, Police Station Qila Dedar Singh, District Gujranwala and was tailed by Police after the murder of Mst. Surraya deceased. He also denied the recovery of hatchet at his instance. According to him Mst. Surraya was previously married to one Bashir of Mouza Pandu Distt: Gujranwala. She eloped with his father and married him without obtaining divorce from her previous husband. He admitted that his father divorced his mother and also .Turned them out of the house. He stated that his mother took him and his brother and sister to her parents in Village/Kot Mehr Ali Murallee, District Gujranwala and started living there. He reiterated that Mst. Surraya was murdered at the instance of her previous husband.
12. With the assistance of the State counsel Mr. Munawar Ahmad Waraich, I thoroughly examined the record. The prosecution has produced following type of evidence in support of their version:-
(A) Ocular evidence.
(B) Motive.
(C) Recovery evidence.
(D) Medical Evidence.
13. As per ocular evidence and xxxxxxxxx according to FIR, there were three eye witnesses namely Mst. Sajida PW-2, Bashir PW-3 and Nazir Ahmad PW-4. As far as, PW-3 and PW-4 are concerned they denied that they were eye witnesses of the occurrence. According to them the deceased was not injured in their presence. PW-3 Bashir, who was not even declared hostile by the prosecution, stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, Mst. Surraya was lying murdered on the place of occurrence, while Rafaqat Ali accused was leaving the occurrence empty handed and blood stained hatchet was lying near the deceased. PW-4 Nazir Ahmad, though hostile but in his examination-in chief he stated that no hatchet was recovered from Rafaqat Ali accused and a hatchet was given to the investigating officer on his asking to be planted against the accused. He admits the close relation-ship to the deceased though he is also related to the accused.
14. Thus the statement of PW-3 and PW-4 do not provide any strength to the prosecution case.
There remains the statement of Mst. Sajida complainant PW-2. She is related to the deceased being her real sister. Her parents were living in another village hence her presence at the time of occurrence is not without suspicion. Being real sister of deceased and having enmity with the appellant, her statement can not be relied upon unless there is an independent corroboration of some other reliable piece of evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. The blood stained hatchet allegedly recovered by the investigating officer at the instance of appellant has not been supported by the recovery witnesses except the inspector/SHO. Nazir Ahmad PW-4 has stated that the hatchet was given to the investigating officer on his asking with a view strength the prosecution case. Thus the recovery of the alleged blood stained hatchet can not believe in the circumstances.
15. The motive for the crime as alleged by the prosecution if examined in conjunction with the version given by the defence, it will not be improper to say that the deceased eloped away when she was already married with one Bashir, leases no room to say that the motive alleged by the prosecution does not give overwhelming support to connect the appellant with the crime. It is an accepted law that in the case of capital Offence conviction can not be based on a solitary statement of an interested PW. Prosecution in such like circumstances must land independent corroboratory evidence. Here in this case PW-2 Mst. Sajida being resident of another village and having close relation-ship with the deceased constrain to believe that her evidence is not sufficient to uphold the conviction, especially when it lacks independent corroboratory evidence to connect the appellant with the crime.
16. I, therefore, do not rely upon the evidence of Mst. Sajida in support of conviction. After rejecting the evidence of Mst. Sajida there remains no other evidence to accept the prosecution story. 1h vie>v of the above, I give benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquit him. The appeal is accepted.
He be immediately released from the Jail if not required in any other case.