IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHARY, J.---Criminal case F.I.R. No.490 dated 30-9-1992 was registered at Police Station Sammandari, District Faisalabad, for offences under .Sections 302, 148, 149 and 379, P.P.C. At the instance of Muhammad Akmal complainant. The incident in this case had taken place within the area of Chak No.41/GB located 10 miles away from the Police Station, and about 1 km away from police Post Tarkhani of that Station, at about 12-30 p.m. On 30-9-1992 while matter was reported to police at 2-15 p.m. The same day, Statement Exh.PA of Muhammad Akmal complainant was to the effect that on the day of occurrence complainant alongwith Munir Ahmad (father), Muhammad Ajmal (brother), Abdul Ghafoor, Noor Muhammad, Rana Faqir Hussain were returning home on a bus after attending the Court of Magistrate Section 30, Samundari in connection with criminal case: F.I.R. No.108/89 under section 307, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Samundari. At about 12-30 p.m. They alighted at a Bus from the Bus Stop Canal Bridge 45/GB. When they were at a distance of 100 yards from the power looms of Rana Altaf Hussain, Munir Ahmad father of complainant whop was riding on a motorcycle No.8731-SLB crossed them. He was followed by Abdul Karim and Muhammad Tafail who were also riding on a motorcycle. When father of complainant reached in front of power looms of Rana Altaf Hussain, Muhammad Tafail fired two shotes of revolver hitting him on his back and he fell down from the motorcycle. Abdul Karim accused parked the motorcycle, and fired two shots with revolver hitting Munir Ahmad at his back.
In the meanwhile a silver coloured car No.919-FDM reached there. Bashir Ahmad, Muhammad Ikram,. Abdul Hameed, Sardar, Gulzar armed with revolvers. Allah Rakha empty-handed alighted from the car. Bashir Ahmad fired with revolver hitting Munir Ahmad under his right armpit Shot fired by Muhammad Ikram hit on front side of abdomen of Munir Ahmad shot fired by Sardar -hit in middle of abdomen of Munir Ahmad. Abdul Hamid fired two successive shots hitting on testis of Munir Ahmad. Shot fired by Gulzar hit Munir Ahmad on his left battock Allah Rakha went on raising lalkara that Munir Ahmad should not be left alive. On raising hue and cry of P.Ws., all the accused escaped from the seene with their respective weapons, riding on motorcycle and the car. The occurrence was witnessed by complainant, Muhammad Akmal, Muhammad Ajmal, Noor Muhammad, Abdul Ghafoor and Rana Faqir Hussain. Munir Ahmad succumbed to the injuries.
According to complainant the accused took away licensed revolver of Munir Ahmad as well.
2. Motive behind the occurrence as stated by the complainant was that there was a litigation between the complainant party and accused party. On the day of occurrence earlier in the morning, all the accused forbade Munir Ahmad in Court premises from pursuing the case but he declined and the accused gave threats that same was going to be the last day of his life.
3. Zulfiqar A.I Sub-Inspector P.W.11 after recording the statement of complainant Exh.PA proceeded to the spot and prepared injury statement Exh. PL and inquest report Exh.PM of the deceased. He sent the dead body to the mortuary for autopsy under the escort of Khurshid Constable. He secured blood-stained crushed stone from the road vide memo. Exh.PE. He took into possession motorcycle of the deceased vide memo. Exh. PG. He got prepared site plans Exh.PC and Exh.PC/1 from the revenue Patwari.
4. The investigation was entrusted to Shabbir Ahmad Malik DSP P.W.12. He recovered, motorcycle No. 1845-PDM vide memo. ,Exh.PL He took into possession revolver P.5 alongwith lines P.-15/1 at the instance of Abdul Karim vide memo. Exh.PJ. He recovered revolver P.6 at the disclosure of Abdul Karim.
5. Muhammad Ansar H.C. P.W.1 had formally recorded F.I.R. Exh. PA/ 1. Muhammad Amin Constable P. W .2 kept various parcels in store room of police station and then had handed over to Khurshid Ahmad Constable for being transmitted to the office of Chemical Exanuner, Lahore. Khurshid Ahmad Constable P.W.3 had escorted the dead body of Munir Ahmad deceased to Civil Hospital Samundari for post-mortem examination.. He also transmitted the sealed parcel to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. Nausher Khan Patwari, P.W.4 had prepared site plans Exh. PC
6. Dr. Akram A.I Dogar P.W.5 had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Munir Ahmad' and observed the following injuries on the dead body.
(1) wound of entry. A lacerated penetrating wound rounded in shape 3/4 c.m. In diameters continuous with wound of exit through abdomen. Margins were inverted, blackening and scorching were present. On right side back of lumber region at the level of L-1.
Wound of exit. A fire-arm wound rounded in shape 1 c.m. In diameter continuous with wound of entry Margins were everted, on front of right side of chest at the level of sixth rib below nipple.
(2) Wound of Entry. A lacerated penetrating wound 3/4 c.m. In diameter x continuous with wound of exit, margins were inverted, blackening and scorching were present it was 5-1/2 c.m. Medial to injury No.1.
Wound of Exit Rounded in shape, I c.m. In diameter x continuous with Wound of entry. On middle of left side of abdomen 13 c.m. From umbilicus.
(3) Wound of entry. Rounded with inverted margins 1/4 c.m. In diameter Note: Ballet was removed from his injury 5/1-2 c.m. Below the injury, by giving skin incision.
(4) A lacerated wound 2-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x skin on back of right testis.
(5) Wound of entry. 3/4 c.m. In diameter x abdominal cavity, blackening and scorching was present. On left side of lumber sacral rigion. Bullet removed from the pelvis.
(6) Wound of entry. 3/4 c.m. In diameter x bone deep on back of right buttock, blackening and scorching was present.
(7) Abrasions 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On right side of chin.
(8) Abrasion 1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On left side of nose.
(9) `Abrasion 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On back of left elbow joint.
(10) Abrasion 4 c. m. x 3 c. m. On upper part of right knee joint.
(11) Abrasion 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. Below right knee.
(12) Abrasion 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. On right cheek.
7. According to Medical Officer all the injuries were ante-mortem. Injuries Nos. l to 6 were inflicted by fire-arm. Remaining injuries were with blunt weapon. Death was due to haemorrhage and shock, injury to liver and intestines under injuries Nos. 1, 2,
5. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, and 5 were grievous and fatal and were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Medical Officer had tendered in evidence copy of post-mortem examination reports as Exh.PD and Exh. PD/1.
8. Muhammad Shafi P.W.6 had identified the dead body of Munir Ahmad deceased at the time of post-mortem examination.
9. Muhammad Akmal complainant P.W.7 had re-affirmed the story given in the F.I.R. Abdul Ghafoor P.W.8 and Faqir Hussain P.W.9 corroborated the version advanced by the complainant.
10. Mukhtar A.I Inspector P.W.10 had arrested the accused Abdul Karim etc. On 27-10-1992 from "Larri Adda", Sanumdari,
11. Zulfiqar A.I Sub-Inspector P.W.11 had carried out investigation in the case. He testified about various steps taken by him during investigation. He had found the accused guilty and had prepared report under section 173, Cr.P.C. Against them. Shabbir Ahmad Malik P.W.12 had also partly investigated the case.
12. Abdul Karim accused in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P;C. Denied the prosecution against him. He claimed as follows: "A false case has been registered. Two recovered bullets from the dead body of the deceased were of 30 bore which could not be fired from this revolver recovered from me as well as from other revolvers. Such bullets may also be fired from a rifle which is called 30 carbine. The recovered bullets cannot be loaded into the chamber of 32 bore revolver or can pass through its barrel. I produce site plan of place of occurrence Exh.DB drawn and signed by me, which reflects that Chak No.41/GB is towards south from P.I 45 and the distance is 3 squares. Adda Chak 45 is at a distance of many squares to the west from P.I 45. Chak No.41/GB is at the distance of 5 squares from Adda
45. There was no justification for the P.Ws. To adopt the wrong path, with the distance of 8/9 squares for going to Chak No.41/GB. The P.Ws. Had made false statements about the cases of deceased and I produce following certified copies of F.I.Rs. Which are from Exh.DC to Exh. DG. I produce photostat copy of statement of Parveen marked 'A' which she made before MIC on 18-4- 1987. I am innocent and have been falsely implicated due to party faction. P.Ws. Rana Faqir Hussain and Abdul Ghafoor are pet witnesses of the police and complainant party."
13. The remaining accused adopted the statement of Abdul Karim accused.
14. Learned trial Court believed the prosecution case against Abdul Karim and Muhammad Tufail and convicted them for Qatl-i-Amd of Munir Ahmad deceased and sentenced them to death. They were also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.25,000 each to legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In the event of default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. Rest of the accused were acquitted from the charges.
15. The convicts appealed. Muhammad Akmal complainant filed criminal revision petition against the acquitted accused. Learned trial Court also referred the matter to this Court for confirmation or otherwise of sentence of death imposed on Abdul Karim and Muhammad Tufail, convicts.
16. Learned counsel for the convicts submitted that narrative contained in the opening part of the first information report and its later part are contradictory and mutually destructive which showed that the complainant party had been trying to coin different stories prior to incorporating the same into the F.I.R. According to him this fact was further highlighted by the fact that the inquest report was torn into two parts and brief facts were scribed in different hand. It was argued that medical evidence contradicted the ocular account and the ocular account otherwise was uninspiring and conduct of sons of the deceased and other witnesses at the time of incident showed that they were not present at, or, near the spot. It was argued that the complainant did not advance any good reason for taking much longer and unnatural route to their village. It was contended that it was an unseen incident and the appellants and their co-accused (since acquitted) were involved in the case on account of previous enmity. Learned counsel for the State argued that present appellants were duly connected with the commission of offence and their conviction should be maintained. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the case of the prosecution against appellants was fully established. According to him the occurrence took place on a busy road at about 12.30 p.m. And the incident could not have gone unwitnessed or the assailants could not go away unnoticed. It was submitted that various aspects of the prosecution case viewed in proper perspective would lead to the conclusion that the offence was committed by none other than present appellants. Prayer was made for maintaining the conviction and the sentence awarded to convicts.
17. The occurrence took place on Samundari-Gojra Road at a point lying midway between Gogera Canal Bridge of Chak 45/G.B. (called P.I 45/GB) and regular Bus-Stop of Chak 45/G.B. (called Adda Chak 45/GB). Both the .Places being more than a mile apart from each other. Chak No.41/G.B. To which the complainant party and the deceased belonged "vas located towards south of the Road.
According to Exh. DB, correctness of which has not been assailed distance between Chak 41/G.B.
And P.I 45/G.B. Was about 3 Squares or 1200 Yards. Distance between Chak 41/G.B. And Adda Chak 45/G.B. Was about 5 Squares, or more than a mile, while distance between the 'P.I' and the 'Adda' was about 4-1/2 Squares or more than a mile. It was argued on behalf of the defence that while returning from Samundari, people alighted at the Bridge (P.I 45/G.B.) and took shorter route to the village 41/G.B. Via country foot-path and one would not travel 2-1/2 miles to the village which the witnesses claimed to be doing at the relevant time. The contention is not without force. Natural points for alighting from a Bus for a resident of Chak No.41/G/B, were the Bridge Chak. 45/G.B. Or Adda Chak 45/G.B. Which were directly linked to Chak 41/G.B. Ordinarily, the people prefer shorter routes to destinations. The complainant and the witnesses did not give any reason for stepping down from the bus at Bridge 45/GB, and for taking a longer route to their village (2-1/2 miles instead of 3/4th of a mile). This aspect was obviously introduced in order to show their presence near the scene of occurrence. The claim of the complainant and witnesses regarding their presence at the spot is not borne out from the material on record and the surrounding circumstances.
18. The accused and the deceased had enmity; inter se. The deceased had history of involvement in other cases as well. The motive in this situation does not advance the case of either of the parties.
19. The deceased had 'on his body four fire-arms entry wounds leading to the, inference that he was shot at least four times. Two of the wounds were resulted by close range shooting while two shots appear to have been fired from a little longer distance. The medical data and other supportive material shows that the weapon employed was the same or was of the same kind. In all probability, the assailant had closed in from behind and then had fired successively at the deceased and some of the shots had hit the deceased from a closer range while the other having hit him when he had fallen off the motor-bike, appeared to have been fired from a longer distance.
The complainant and witnesses were not present at the spot and then had assigned different roles to their avowed enemies. The inference is supported by material on record. The opening part of the first information report gives the impression that the deceased and others had returned home from Samundari on a bus while in the later part it was shown that the deceased had come back on motorcycle. Both the parts do not reconcile. The complainant party appears to have been piecing together different stories prior to getting the case registered and in the final version forgot to bring both the parts in line. This view is fortified by the fact the inquest report (which is a single sheet of paper) Exh. PM, was, torn into two parts and it was not shown as to why this was done. The first part containing columns was filed in different hand while the later part containing brief facts of the case was scribed by a different person. The F.I.R. In this case was registered belatedly and that version was incorporated in the inquest report at a later stage. The whole edifice of prosecution case becomes shaky and doubtful by this aspect of the matter alone.
20. We have assessed the record with care and are of the view that the incident was not witnessed by the complainant acid other eye-witnesses, and accused were involved in the case on account of long-standing enmity between the parties, The ocular account furnished by interested and inimical witnesses is belied by the medical evidence and case of the appellants has not been found to be distinguishable from that of acquitted accused as there is no material which provides further corroboration to the prosecution story as far as appellants were concerned. The record might give an eerie feeling that the murderer could be one of the eight accused nominated in the first information report but Court is not required to solve mysteries. It has to come to the conclusion that the prosecution evidence, the defence evidence, and the be legally and logically deducible from this evidence, sufficiently connected the accused with the commission of offence charged with. The prosecution case is flawed in numerous respects and the appellants are not connected with the commission of offence on the basis of evidence led at the trial.
21. The appeal filed by convicts is allowed and they are acquitted of the charge. They shall be released from custody if not required in any other case. Criminal revision petition fails.
The Murder Reference is answered in the negative.