' Rashid alias Sheeda, Caste Mochi was tried for offences under section 32/364/201, P. P. C. For the murder of his sister Mst. Latifan, by Mian Ghulam Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura.
By his judgment dated 19-4-1973, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted Rashid of the offence of section 302, P. P. C. But convicted him for offence under section 364/201, P. P. C. For the offence under section 364, P. P. C. He was sentenet d to 7 years' R. I. And a fine of Rs, 500, or in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo another 6 months' R. I. For the offence under section 201, P. P. C. He was sentenced to 5 years R. I. And fine of Rs, 250 or in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further 3 months' R. I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
' The appellant has now filed an appeal against his conviction and sentences.
2. The prosecution story, briefly, is that Mat. Latifan (deceased) was suspected by her family of carrying on with one Abdul Khaliq of the same village. Her parents planned to marry her to one Sardar. It is, however, alleged that on the evening of 29-6-1971, Rashid appellant was sent with her sister (Mst. Latifan) to village Dhillam. In the way she was seen by Muhammad Ali (P. W. 5) who asked the appellant as to where he was going. Thereafter Mat. Latifan was never seen. It said that she never reached village Dhillam. Subsequently, on 30.6-1971, the appellant is said to have made an extra-judicial confession before Mubarik Ali (P. W. 4) who reported the matter to the police. A formal F. I. R. (Exb. PB) was, thereupon, recorded on 1-7-1971. During the investigation blood-stained earth, blood-stained toka and blood-stained clothes of the appellant, were also recovered. These were witnessed by Mubarik All (P. W. 4). The dead body of Mst. Latifan was never found.
3. At the trial the prosecution produced 7 witnesses in support of its case. The appellant denied his guilt and pleaded innocence.
4. The prosecution evidence in this case is of the following categories :-
(1) Extra judicial confession by the appellant before Mubarik P. W.
4.
(ii) Recovery of blood-stained earth, blood-stained toka and blood-stained clothes of the appellant. WO Evidence that the appellant was last seen alive with Mst. Latifan (deceased) by Muhammad All (P. W. 5)
(iv) Evidence of motive i,e, that Mat. Latifan (deceased) was carrying on with one Abdul Khaliq 1 and
(v) The fact that the appellant had absconded after the occurrence and was arrested after one month.
5. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of extra-judicial confession and the evidence of recoveries, holding inter alia that Mubarik Ali (P. W. 4) was a police tout. ' He based the conviction of the appellant on the evidence of last seen together, the motive of offence and the alleged absconsion of the accused.
6 I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone-through the evidence on the record.
' I notice that Muhammad All (P. W. 5) the only witness who is alleged to have last seen the deceased alive with the appellant, resiled at the trial and did not support the prosecution case. He had to be declared hostile and cross-examined by the A. P. P. Be has stated that it was dark at the time when he is said to have seen the appellant going with the deceased and has also stated that he bad not seen Mst. Latifan (deceased). Similarly Meraj Din (P. W. 6) the father of the appellant has stated that he never sent Mst. Latifan to village Dhillam with Rashid appellant. I, therefore, feel that the evidence of last seen together is not reliable.
The remaining evidence (i,e, the alleged motive and absconsion therefore, not enough to sustain conviction.
7. The net result is that I feel that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal is, therefore, accepted, his conviction and sentences are set aside, and the appellant is acquitted. He shall be released forthwith. The fine, if realised, should be refunded to him.