JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD ASIF JAN, J,.- Mst. Kaniz Bibi, aged about 24 years, was convicted under Section 302 P.P.C, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to para fine of Rs.10,000/- or in default thereof to undergo 6 months'
S.I., by Ch. Muhammad Zafarullah, Additional Sessions Judge. Chunian, vide judgment/order dated 19-9-1992. She was. However, given the benefit of Section 3.82-B, Cr.P.C. Mst. Kaniz Bibi has appealed against her conviction and sentence.
2. According the prosecution, Mst. Kaniz Bibi inflicted ha that blows upon her late husband Faqir Muhammad, deceased, aged about 29 years., at mid night on 18-11-1991. When they were both in i.e their house in Village Omlah which is about 15 miles from P.S. Sarai Mughal, Tehsil and District Kasur.
3. A report (Exhance.) was lodged on 19-11-1991 at 7.30 a.m. By complainant Maula Bakhsh (PW.4) paternal uncle of Faqir Muhammad, deceased which was reduced into writing by S.I. Nazir Ahmad (PW.8) and on the basis of which the formal F.I.R. (Exh. P.C/1) was drawn under. Section 302.P.P.C, by Head Constable Muhammad Akbar (PW.7) at about 7.30 a.m.
4. -The occurrence was allegedly witnessed by Maula Bakhsh (PW.4). .Maternal uncle of the deceased, Sardar Ali (PW.5) who used to live in the neighbourhood and Laklia who was given up by the prosecution as being "I Unnecessary".
5. A blood-stained hatchet (Exh. P.1) was allegedly recovered from the house ot the appellant on 26-11 -1991, t/c/c memo. Exh. P.E.
However scrapings of blood were not sent to the Serologist and therefore it is not possible to say with any certainty whether the blood in question was of human origin or not. At any rate, the alleged recovery of the hatchet has not been believed by the trial Court, and rightly so.
6. The motive for this occurrence was stated to be that Maula Bakhsh, complainant had arranged the marriage of the deceased with the appellant about six months prior to the occurrence. About a fortnight prior to the occurrence the appellant chanelled with the deceased and went away to her parents' house in Bhai I Pheru. The. Sil Chunian. District Kasur. However. Maula Bakhsh complainant and Faqir Muhammad deceased allegedly brought her back just a day before the occurrence.
No other witness was produced by the prosecution to establish its version about the motive except Maula Bakhsh complainant.
7. Bashir Ahmad. Chowkidar of Village Omlah appeared as DW. I and stated that on the day of occurrence he learnt about the murder of Faqir Muhammad when he had gone to offer his "for" prayer to the village Mosque. Thus, Bashir Ahmad. Chowkidar completely falsifies the version of the prosecution as given by the complainant who stated in the FIR that he left the dead body of Faqir Muhammad deceased in the custody of Bashir Chowkidar before proceeding to lodge a report.
8. Allah Ditta s/o Ghulam Muhammad appeared as DW.2 and stated that the complainant was not present in the village on the fateful night and that he was deputed to inform the complainant and bring him from Bhai Pheru.
9. Suba s/o Sahib Din. Appeared as DW.3 and stated that Maula Bakhsh complainant was his real uncle while Faqir Muhammad deceased was his first cousin and that on the fateful night Maula Bakhsh complainant was not in the village and has gone to Bhai Pheru.
10. The appellant pleaded totally denial and false implication in this case by complainant Maula Bakhsh. As a matter of fact she actually pleaded alibi and stated that on the nig;!u of occurrence she was in the house of her parents in Bhai Pheru and not in village Omlah.
11. The motive for this occurrence is insufficient and uncorroborated. The ocular account is given by witnesses whose very presence in i.e the house at the time of the occurrence is highly-doubtful.- Even according to their own version the room where the murder took place Was bolted from in i.e.
12. The alleged recovery of the hatchet has not been relied upon by the trial Court and rightly so because the evidence regarding the arrest of the appellant and also recovery of hatchet is highly discrepant and doubtful.
13 Seen in juxtaposition the defence evidence completely falsities and demolishes the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove its case be> under reasonable doubt.
This appeal is, therefore, accepted, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant ai;e hereby set aside.
The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith unless she is required in an\ other ease. ' .