' Mst. Jamila Bibi has filed this appeal challenging the judgment, dated 29-1-1994 delivered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Samundari, District Faisalabad whereby she has been convicted for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. The prosecution case unfolded in the F.I.R. Lodged by Mirza Bashir Ahmed (P.W.3) was that Mirza Bashir Ahmed complainant was resident of Mohallah Islamapura and that he was a Councilor of the Municipality of Samundari. At about 7-30 a.m. On 20-9-1992 he received an information that one Liaquat Ali son of Nadir Khan, Caste Rajput, resident of Islampura had died. Upon receipt of that information he proceeded to the house of the said Liaquat All in the company of Muhammad lshaque (P.W.4), Taj Din and Arshad All (P.W.5). Upon reaching that house they saw the dead body of Liaquat All and noticed some bluish abrasions on the neck of the deceased which showed that the deceased had died when somebody had pressed his throat. It was noticed by the complainant and the persons accompanying him that Liaquat Ali deceased's wife Mst. Jamila Bibi, the present appellant, was quite perturbed. Upon their query Mst. Jamila Bibi took all four of them aside and told them that her husband had been quite sick and he used to quarrel upon the Visits of their relatives. Fed up with that attitude of the deceased she had purchased 10 tablets of tranquillizer from the market and administered the same to the deceased by mixing it in his tea at night. She further stated that when her husband fell unconscious she pressed his throat and he died because of that. According to the complainant Mst. Jamila Bibi had confessed her guilt before them, had asked for forgiveness and had further requested for help in the matter. The motive set up in the F.1.R. Was that Mst. Jamila Bibi appellant was a woman of easy virtue and Liquate All deceased used to sternly forbid her in that respect and due to that Mst. Jamila Bibi had committed the murder oilier husband Liaquat Ali.
3. From the house of the deceased Mirza Bashir Ahmed complainant (P.W.3) proceeded to lodge a report with the local police in that respect and at 8-30 a.m. On the same day he met Falak Sher, S.- I. (P.W.7) and made a statement (Exh. P. A.) before him in that regard. Formal F.I.R. No,471 (Exh.P.A./1) was subsequently recorded by Muhammad Ansar (P.W.1) at Police Station S- - naari at 8-50 a.m.
On to same day.
4. Post-mortem examination (Extt.P.G.) on inc dead oody of Liaquat Alideceased was considered ny Of tat ir Ahmad Nat. (P.W.8) at Tehsit Headquarter Hospital Samundari idari at 3 p. Iii. On 20-9-1992.
The doctor found nine injuries present on the person of the deceased. He also took specimen from the stomach, liver, kidney, spleen, intestines, heart and lungs of the deceased and sent the same to the office of the Chemical Examiner and expression of any opinion about the cause of death was put off by him till receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examiner, vide his Report No,4758/PV, dated 15-10-1992, declared that he could not detect poison in the parts of the body of the deceased sent to him for examination. On the basis of that report of the Chemical Examiner the doctor P.W.8 gave his final opinion that death of the deceased had been caused by asphyxia due to throttling and that all the injuries found on the dead body were ante-mortem.
5. Falak Sher, S.-I. (P.W.7) investigated this case. He visited the place of occurrence, prepared the injury statement and inquest report, sent the dead body to mortuary for autopsy, drafted the site plan of the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After post-mortem examination he had received the last-worn clothes of the deceased. On 21-9-1992 he arrested Mst.
Jamila Bibi appellant and on 26-9-1992 he got a formal site plan of the place of occurrence prepared by a Draftsman. After completion of the investigation a 'challah in that respect was submitted before the learned trial Court.
6. On 14-12-1993 a charge under section 302, P.P.C. Was framed by the learned trial Court against the appellant to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
7. During the trial the prosecution produced as many as nine witnesses in support of its case against the appellant. Muhammad Ansar, Head Constable (P.W.1) had recorded the formal F.I.R.
Muhammad Nawaz, Constable (P.W.2) had escorted the dead body to the mortuary and had produced the last-worn clothes of the deceased before the Investigating Officer. Bashir Ahmed complainant had lodged the F.I.R. In this case. He, Muhammad Ishaque (P.W.4) and Muhammad Arshad (P.W.5) deposed about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before them just before the lodging of the F.I.R. Muhammad Aslam (P.W.6) had identified the dead body at the time of 1osi-mortem examination. Falak Sher, S.-I. (P.W.7) stated about recording of the statement of the complainant for the purpose of F.I.R. And also about various steps taken by him during the investigation of this case. Dr. Munir Ahmed Naz (P.W.8) provided the medical evidence in this case and Aurang Zeb, Draftsman (P.W.) had prepared the formal site plan.
8. In her statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant denied all the allegations of fact levelled against her by the prosecution and claimed that she had been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of political rivalry with the complainant. The appellant opted not to make a statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.e.C. And produced her mother MM. Amina Bibi as support of her innocence.
9. As observed above the learned trial Court was pleased to convict the appellant for an offence under section 302, P.P.C., sentencing her to imprisonment for life. Hence. The present appeal.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the entire record of this case with their assistance.
11. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the motive set up by the prosecution in this case has not been proved. It is further argued that the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before the prosecution witnesses is a concoction incarnate. It is also argued that the Chemical Examiner's Report regarding poisoning the deceased being in the negative the medical evidence furnished by the prosecution destroys the case of the prosecution.
It is lastly argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is completely innocent and that she has been made a scape-goat in this matter to satisfy the whims and malice of the complainant. As against that the learned counsel for the State has submitted that the extra- judicial confession made by the appellant before P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 provides sufficient basis for her conviction and that these witnesses had no enmity or ill will against the appellant. They were all independent witnesses and had no earthly reason to falsely implicate the appellant on a capital charge. It has also been argued that the evidence of motive provides corroboration to the extra- judicial confession and the medical evidence lends it further support. It is, thus, submitted that the learned trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant as the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
12. As regards the motive set up by the prosecution it is noticed that in fact three different reasons have been advanced by the prosecution to show that the appellant wanted to do away with her husband. Firstly, it was alleged in the F.I.R, by the complainant that the appellant was a woman of easy virtue and the deceased used to forbid her from indulging in promiscuity. This motive could not stand its ground because when the complainant appeared before the trial Court as P.W.3 he categorically denied having alleged in the F.I.R. That the appellant was a woman of easy virtue.
Secondly, the prosecution had maintained that the appellant was sick and tired of the deceased because of his quarrelling with her whenever a relative 'of theirs used to visit them. This allegation also could not travel beyond a mere verbal assertion as neither any evidence of such a quarrel was produced nor, admittedly, the Investigating Officer conducted any investigation regarding this aspect of the matter. Thirdly, it was alleged by the prosecution that the deceased was quite sick and due to his protracted ailment the appellant wanted to get rid of him. When appearing as P.W.3 the complainant had stated very clearly' that the only ailment with which the deceased was suffering was cough which had never deterred or stopped the deceased from working. There is no material available on the record to conclude that the deceased was suffering from any ailment whatsoever which could have prompted the appellant to do away with him. In fact the Investigating Officer P.W.7 had candidly admitted that he had not investigated about any ailment suffered by the I deceased. All this leads me to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive set up by it in this case.
13. As regards the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before Bashir Ahmed complainant P.W.3, Ishaque P.W.4 and Muhammad Arshad P.W.5 suffice it to observe that there is no convincing evidence available on the record about the making of that confession by the appellant before the said witnesses. These witnesses have alleged that in the morning of 20-9-1992 the appellant had made her confession before them inside the house where the dead body of the deceased was lying. As against that the Investigating Officer P.W.7 has maintained that when he visited the said house soon after recording of the F.I.R. The, appellant was not present in that house and that she was arrested by him on the next day i,e, 21-9-1992. It is also noteworthy that this extrajudicial confession had been made in the background of the murder having been committed on the basis of the different motives alleged by the prosecution but, as observed above, no such motive has been proved by the prosecution in this case. Therefore, in the absence of those motives the commission of murder by the appellant itself becomes doubtful and the making of an extra- judicial confession about committing that murder is rendered extremely unreliable. It is also difficult to lose sight of the fact that the Chemical Examiner's Report, referred to by doctor P.W.8, shows no poison or tranquillizer having been administered to the deceased. It would be plainly unnatural to expect that the appellant would confess of doing something which was non-existent.
Even otherwise, it is settled law that an extra-judicial confession is a very weak type of evidence and the same cannot be made a basis for recording a conviction in the absence of any independent support or corroboration thereof.
14. The medical evidence in this case also does not support the prosecution's allegation that the appellant had administered tranquillizer to the deceased before putting him to sleep. As observed earlier the report of the Chemical Examiner in respect of poison or tranquillizer is in the negative. As regards the injuries found on the dead body it suffices to observe that, admittedly, it is a case of an witnessed occurrence and there is nothing available on the record to positively conclude that it was the appellant and none else who had caused those injuries to the deceased.
15. For what has been observed above, I have no hesitation in concluding that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this appeal is accepted, the conviction of the appellant is set side and she is hereby acquitted of the charge against her. The appellant shall be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case.