CH. KHURSHID AHMAD, J.- The appellant was tried u/S. 302/379/411 PPC by Additional Sessions Judge, Multan for committing the murder of Mst. Nasreen Akhtar his wife and for committing theft of ornaments and other articles of Mst. Nasreen Akhtar deceased. The charge was framed on 3.11.1989 and the appellant was convicted u/S. 302 PPC for causing of death of Mst. Nasreen Akhtar his wife. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof he was to undergo further R1 for to years. He was also ordered to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.
5000/- as provided u/S. 544-A Cr.P.C, payable to the heirs of Nasreen Akhtar deceased. In default thereof he was to further undergo R1 for six months. The trial Court did not record its findings on commission of offence u/S. 379/411 PPC. Hence this appeal.
2. Khalid Pervaiz r/o Chak No. 669/10 GB (PW.1) the real brother of Mst. Nasreen Akhtar made a statement at Police Station Cantt. Multan on 26.4.1987 which was registered u/S. 302/379 PPC by Ata Ullah Khan Sherwani, SHO. In the said statement it was alleged that Mst. Nasreen Akhtar was married to Muhammad Arshad accused on 15.4.1987. The spouses reached Multan on 25.11. 1987 and were staying in the quarter allotted to Abdul Ghafoor, the brother of the accused in Old Fort Colony Multan. On 25.4.1987 complainant Khalid Pervaiz and Muhammad Iqbal also reached there.
They enjoyed a film at VCR and then went to sleep outside the house. At about mid-night they were attracted by the shrieks of Nasreen Akhtar coming from the room where the couple was asleep.
They rushed to die room and found in bulb light that Nasreen Akhtar was lying on the cot and Muhammad Arshad accused w:as sitting on her chest and pressing her neck with both hands while she was struggling for life. Both of the PWs saved Nasreen from the clutches of the accused who managed to escape. Nasreen died at the spot. On checking they found that the accused had removed the ornaments of the deceased being katuas. Ear rings, six bangles, a necklace, to rings and a wrist watch lying under the pillow.
3. The motive for the occurrence as given was that the deceased was not a pretty girl and some articles of Jahez and ornaments had moved with the bride to the house of the groom where the other articles were retained which had annoyed the accused.
4. According to Atta Ullah Khan Sherwani PW.8, he proceeded not the spot after recording the evidence and prepared inquest report Ex.PB, injury statement Ex.PJ and also took into possession bad sheet P.11, vide memo. Ex.PE, on the same day. Allah Yar, constable was deputed to escort the dead body to the mortuary. The accused was arrested the same day and on his personal search a sum of Rs. 1700/- and a wrist watch were recovered from his person and taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PB. Ornaments Ex.P1 to P.7 were also recovered on the pointation of the accused which were taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PC. Site plan without scale Ex.PO was also prepared by him. He got accused medically examined through letter Ex.PL/1. The injury statement Ex.PL was also sent alongwith the letter. The constable PW produced before him last worn clothes of the deceased i.e. Dopatta P.8, shirt P.9 and Shalwar P.10 which were taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PE. The complainant produced receipt of purchase of ornaments which was taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PD; directed the draftsman to prepare site plan which was Exs.PN, PN/1 and PN/2 bearing his notes in red ink. He recorded the statement of all the PWs and transferred the investigation as also the custody of the accused to Muhammad Bakhsh, SI PW.
5. Muhammad Bakhsh, SI PW.9 recorded the statement of Muhammad Ashfaq and Shaukat Hayat Draftsman. He conducted the investigation and submitted the challan.
6. The accused was sent up to stand his trial to the Court of Session. Charge under to heads i.e. u/S. 302 PPC and u/S. 379/411 PPC was framed on 3.1.1989 by the trial Court which was read over to the accused w ho pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. At trial Khalid Pervaiz appeared as PW.1 and made almost a similar statement as narrated by him in Ex.PA, the FIR. Muhammad Iqbal PW.2 supported him. PW.2 also stated that bed sheer stained with semen P.11 was secured in his presence \ide memo. Ex.PF.
8. Allah Yar constable PW.3, Shamla Shah PW.4 and Muhammad Hanif PW.5 were police officials and their evidence was of formal nature which need not be elaborately discussed for the disposal of this appeal. Similar was the evidence of Shaukat Hayat Draftsman PW.7 who had prepared site plan Exs.PN, PN/1 and PN 2 in the scale of 1"-16'.
9. Dr. Iftikhar Hussain PW.6 had conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and the cause of death, according to the PW, was injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the neck of the deceased which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature collectively to cause the death. The cause of death was asphyxia due to manual strangulation. All the injuries were ante mortem and caused by blunt external force. The viscera and vaginal swabs were sent to the Chemical Examiner, No poison or semen was detected. Ex.PG was the correct carbon copy of the post-mortem report and Ex.PG/1 was the diagram showing the location of injuries. He also signed inquest report Ex.PH, injury statement Ex.PJ and forwarded the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex.PK to the SHO Police Station Multan Cantt.
10. He had also examined Muhammad Arshad accused on 27.4.1987 and found to injuries on his person. Both were simple in nature and caused by blunt weapon within 24/48 hours. On examination his sexual organ was found healthy and normal. Ex.PM was the correct carbon copy of the MLR. He admitted in cross- examination that according to the inquest report Ex.PH he had come to know that the police recovered the information/knowledge of death of the deceased at 3.00 p.m.
On 26.4.1987. This entry in Column No. 3 of the inquest report was very important and shall be discussed later on.
11. The accused was examined u/S. 342 Cr.P.C. He denied the allegation y and stated that he was innocent. He had reached Multan alongwith his mother on 26.4.1987 where he saw the police who was interrogating his brother Abdul Ghafoor, his son Tariq and one Azhar the relative of Khalid Pervaiz. He offered to appear as his on witness u/S.340(2) Cr.P.C.
12. In his statement u/S. 340(2) Cr.P.C, the accused stated on oath that he was married to deceased on 15.4.1987. After nikah at Chak No. 669/10 GB he took the bride alongwith to his on native village where they stayed for 3/4 days and came to the house of the parents of the bride where they also stayed for about 3/4 days. Abdul Ghafoor came there and as he was residing in Fort Colony Multan and was in possession of a quarter in the said colony, he took his wife to Multan " whereas he went to take his mother from Sargodha in order to settle down at Multan in a separate quarter as he was also a service-man. On 26.4.1987 he returned and saw local police interrogating his brother, his nephew and one Azhar, a close relative of the complainant. He informed the complainant Khalid Pervaiz the brother of the deceased about the death of his sister who reached Multan at 4.30 p.m. Alongwith Iqbal and another; he was involved in the case falsely at the instance ot complainant who wanted to save Azhar his closer relative. He claimed that recovery of ornaments was planted on him and further claimed that Rs. 1700/- and w rist watch belong to him and were taken into possession by the police.
13. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
14. The Public Prosecutor had given up 8 PWs cited in the calendar of witnesses on 27.2.1989. Almost all of them were the residents of Chak No. 669/10 GB Peer Mahal District Toba Tek Singh and on query the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State informed me, after consulting the record, that all these witnesses except Muhammad Ashfaq were present, at the arrival of the police on the fateful day at 3.45 p.m. On the spot.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW.1 Khalid Pervaiz and Muhammad Iqbal were not natural witnesses. They were not supposed to be at Multan and if at all they were sleeping outside the house, they could not be first persons to reach the bed room and witness the occurrence.
16. So far as the recovery of ornaments is concerned that is of absolutely no help to the prosecution story. The ornaments were recovered from an iron box lying in the said quarter and if PW. 1 and PW.2 to be believed, ornaments P. 1 to P.7 could not be in that iron box as. According to them, the accused had fled away from the spot after their arrival in the room. In view of the same I disbelieve PW. 1 and PW.2 regarding recoveries of articles P.I to P.7.
17. The motive as given in the case was to flimsy. It has not been supported by any independent witness and Muhammad Amin PW who was to depose about the same has been given up leading me to assume that he was not to support the prosecution case. The story of motive is also not believable and the same was not sufficient for a groom to commit the murder of a bride only after 10 15 days of nikah. I disbelieve the motive part of the story also.
18. The story of the prosecution regarding occurrence as given by PW.1 and PW.2 is not believable.
Had PW.1 and PW.2 been at Multan there was no reason for PW.1 to lodge the repot in the after- noon. It is admitted by Allah Yar P.W.4 that the Police Post Fort Colony was only to furlongs i.e. 440 yards away from the quarter where the occurrence took place. If the prosecution seeks to believe this Court a cock and bull story that the occurrence which took place during the night between 25th and 26th of April, 1987 was reported in the after-noon and the police reached at the spot at 3.45 p.m., the prosecution is absolutely mistaken. This Court is to see, in the circumstances of the case, if there was some plausible explanation for the delay caused in the registration of the case, 12 hours was not a short period of time which took police to reach the place of occurrence. The statement of the accused u/S. 340(2) Cr.P.C, brings truth to the extent that Khalid Pervaiz and other relations of the deceased were informed through telephone and' they arrived at the place of occurrence and the police waited for them.
19. Yet another important fact to be taken note of is Column No. 3 of Ex.PH which was inquest report.
The same was prepared by SHO PW.8. The entry of column No.3 reads:- "Date and time of information regarding death: and given as:- 26.4.1987 at 3.00 p.m at the spot".
The post-mortem of the deceased took place on 27.4.1987 and I have no reason to disbelieve that the local police had been waiting for the relatives of the deceased to come to the spot ana men to register the case. Ex.PJ is the application written in ink by PJK-8- Name of the first informant has not been shown and the space has been kept blank. Even the number of FIR and nature of offence appear to the naked eye that they were subsequently written with a different pen and ink and this Court has the jurisdiction to take judicial notice of the same. Had FIR been registered at the time of the despatch of the dead body to the mortuary, column for inserting die name of the first informant could not be left blank and there was no need to leave the number of the FIR and the nature of offences as blank spaces. It appears that the SHO sent the dead body to the mortuary through that application and waited for the relations of the deceased to come and then to create, fabricate the story.
20. It has been admitted by the PW.8, the I.O. That he had joined one Azhar in the investigation. It is admitted by PW. I that Azhar was his close relative. The reason of his presence in the house of the deceased has not been explained. The said Azhar has not been produced as a witness who was the most natural witness in the present case and I am of the view that the appellant was involved falsely in the case. PW.1 and PW.2 were not present at the spot and they had not witnessed any occurrence whatsoever. They were informed at their residences in Chak No. 669- 10 GB, connected by pacca read to Multan and through telephone. I disbelieve PW.1 and PW.2 and hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the present appellant.
21. The conviction recorded by Additional Sessions Judge Multan on 11.4.1989 is accordingly set aside and the appellant is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted. He shall be released forthwith if