This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.996-2001 "Mst. Fahmida Begum v. The State" and Criminal Appeal No.784 of 2001 titled "Manzoor Ahmad and others v. The State", as all the appeals are against the impugned judgment, dated 22-5-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala.
2. Manzoor Ahmad son of Noor Ahmed, Muhammad Arshad son of Muhammad Aslam, Mehmood Ahmad alias Mohda son of Inayat Ullah and Mst. Fahmida Bibi have challenged judgment, dated 22-5-2001 passed by 'the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby they were convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For murder of Qaiser Farooq and were sentenced to 10 years' R.I.
And a fine of Rs.25,000 each except Mst. Fahmida Bibi, who is ordered to pay Rs.50,000 fine, if recovered shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and in case of non-payment of fine to undergo R.I. For one year. Through the same judgment Abdul Qadoos was acquitted of the charge.
3. Brief facts of the case are that F.I.R. No.498 of 1997, dated 1-12-1997 under sections 302, 148, 149, P.P.C. Was got registered at Police Station City, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, Exh.P.C. On the statement of Manzoor Ahmad P.W.4 that on 30-11-1997 he alongwith Muhammad Javed came to see Qasier Farooq, their brother in his house, who was living in Mohallah Sikandar Pura, Wazirabad, and at that time was not available and his were told them that he had gone to "Adds Chowk Masjid Musafran" for settling account of cash with the driver of his bus, on which complainant alongwith his brother Muhammad Javed went after Qaiser Farooq and found him sitting near over-head bridge, waiting the arrival of his bus. At about 11-00 p.m. Manzoor Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad alias Ghota, Mehood alias Mooda, (appellants) came there and asked Qaiser Farooq that Mst. Fahmida Bibi (appellant) was calling him for rendition of accounts. Therefore, Qaiser Farooq accompanied them and asked the complainant and his brother to go back to the house and he will return after seeing Mst. Fahmida. On the next day, the conductor of the bus namely Abdul Qadoos came to the house of Qaiser Farooq and inquired about him. He was told that he had not returned home since last night. On which complainant and his brother Muhammad Javed started searching Qaiser Faiooq. On way Muhammad Asif son of Muhammad Yousuf Ghuman met them. He inquired about Qaiser Farooq, who also accompanied the complainant and when they reached near the Railway quarter, they found dead body of Qaiser Farooq lying, near Railway line. They saw numerous sharp- edge injuries on his body. They suspected the appellants for murder of Qasier Farooq for the motive that Mst. Fahmida had lent Rs.2,00,000 to Qaiser Farooq, who has been demanding the return of that amount for the last 3/4 months. The complainant got his supplementary statement recorded stating therein that his brother has been murdered by Imtiaz alias Bholi, Samiullah alias Sammi, Dilawar, Shehzada Almas alias Shehzada, Mian Yamin alias Mian, who were seen in the car near the Bus Stand because Imtiaz had previously murdered their younger brother Sabir Hussain on 26-11-1982 and said Imtiaz had previously attempted many times to murder Qaiser Farooq.
4. Muhammad Iqbal, S.-I. P. W.7 after registration of the case arrived at the place of occurrence and took the dead body into possession. He prepared the injury statement Exh.P.E. Took into possession blood-stained earth from the spot through memo. Exh.PD, prepared the inquest report Exh. PG, moved an application Exh.PH for conducting post--mortem examination and entrusted the dead body to Iftikhar Ahmad and Tariq Javed for escorting the same to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. He also took into possession last-worn clothes of the deceased produced before him after post-mortem examination through memo. Exh.P.B. He arrested the appellants on 2-1-1998 and after completion of the investigation sent them to judicial lock-up on 14-1-1998. During his investigation he found all the 5 accused persons innocent and submitted the challan.
The trial Court framed the charge which was denied by the appellants and they claimed trial.
During the trial, the prosecution examined as may as 9 witnesses.
The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Muhammad Ikram P.W.9, who on 1-12-1997 at 4-45 p.m.
Conducted the post--mortem examination on the dead body of Qaiser Farooq and found the following injuries on his person:--- (1)Incised wound 5 x .5 c. m. Bone deep on top and back of head, (2)Incised wound 8 x 1 c.m. Bone deep on right side of head 10 c.m. Above the right ear.
(3)Incised wound present in shape 8 x .5 c.m. Bone deep on right side of head 2 c.m. Below the injury No.2.
(4)Incised wound 7.5 x 1 c.m. Bone deep on right side of head 3.5 c.m. Below and right side under injury No.2.
(5)Incised wound 7.5 c.m. x 1 c.m bone deep on right side of forehead 3 c.m. Above the right brow.
(6)Incised wound 5 x 1 c.m. x bone deep on left side of forehead 1.5 c.m. Above the left eyebrow.
(7)Incised wound 3 x 5 c.m. x bone deep on the back of head 3.5 c.m. Back to left ear.
(8)Incised wound 8 x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the back of head 3.5 c.m. Below the injury No.1.
(9)Incised wound 10 x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the back of head 2 c.m. Below the injury No.7.
(10)Incised wound 4.5 c.m. x 5 c.m. x bone deep on right side of head 2 c.m. Below the injury No.2.
(11)Incised wound 8 x 1.5 c.m. x muscle deep on left side of mandible in front of right ear including right side of nose.
(12)Incised wound 4 x 5 c.m. x muscle deep on left side of face 1.5 c.m. Below the left ear.
(13)Incised wound 9.5 x .5 c.m. x muscle deep on left side of face extending from right side of nose to in front of left ear 2 c.m. Below the left eye.
(14)Incised wound 1.5 x 2 c.m. x skin deep on left chest 3 c.m. Below the injury No. 13.
(15)Incised wound 7 x .5 c.m. x muscle deep on left side of face 1 c.m. Below the left angle of mouth.
(16)Incised wound 2 x .5 c.m. x muscle deep on left side of chin 1.5 c.m. Below the injury No. 15.
(17)Incised wound 2 x .5 c.m. x muscle deep on left side of chin 1.5 c.m. Below the injury No. 16.
(18)Incised wound 7 x 2 c.m. x bone deep on right ear with including the right pinna.
(19)Incised wound 5.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x going deep on back of left ear.
(20)Incised wound 6.5 c:m. x 3 c.m. x going deep on right side of neck 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. x going deep on right side of neck 3 c.m. Below the right ear.
(21)Incised wound 24 x 6 c.m. x vertebrae deep on front, left and right side of neck with cutting all the contents of neck, trachea, oesophagus and all major vessels.
(22)Incised wound 4.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x muscle deep on right forearm ullar side 5 c.m. Above the wrist joint.
(23)Incised wound 2 x 1 c.m. x bone deep on ulnar side of right wrist-joint.
(24)Incised wound 4.5 c.m. 1.5 c.m. Muscle deep on ulnar side of right hand 2 c.m. Below the injury No.23.
(25)Multiple incised wound in area of 6.5 x 7 c.m. x muscle deep on palmer and u1nar side of right hand.
(26)Incised wound 6 x 1 c.m. Bone deep on palmer surface of right hand 1.5 c.m. Under injury No.25.
(27)Incised wound 2 x .5 c.m. x bone deep on base of index finger of right hand.
(28)Incised wound 6 x 2 c.m. x bone deep on back of right arm 4 c.m. Above the right elbow-joint.
(29)Incised wound 7 x 2 c.m. x bone deep on the palmer and back side of left hand in between thumb and index finger.
(30)Abrasion 2 x 1 c.m. On back of left elbow joint.
5. The ocular account was furnished by Manzoor Ahmad complainant P.W.4 and Muhammad Javed, P.W.5. Both of them supported the version of the F.I.R and narrated the motive for the occurrence. The remaining witnesses are of formal nature and need not to be discussed.
6. The prosecution evidence was closed by tendering in evidence report of Chemical Examiner Exh.PJ and that of Serologist Exh. PK.
7. The statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. They denied the allegations, claimed innocence and false involvement.
8. The trial culminated into conviction of the appellants as mentioned above. Hence these appeals
9. Learned counsel for the appellants at the very outset has argued that there is not an iota of evidence against Mst. Fehmida and no witness has been examined to prove the alleged motive while against Manzoor Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Mehmood Ahmed alias Mooda, the only evidence is of last seen narrated by Manzoor Alimad complainant P.W.4 and his real brother Muhammad Javed P.W.5; that the appellants were declared innocent during the investigation.
Rather the complainant himself through a supplementary statement implicated some other persons responsible for commission of the crime and appellants were exonerated. The family members of the deceased had sworn affidavits during the investigation and had exonerated the appellants, therefore, conviction of the appellants is not legal and they are entitled for acquittal.
10. Conversely, the appeals have been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant as well as for the State.
11. Heard Record perused.
12. It is correct that the only evidence against the appellants Manzoor Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad and Mehmood is of last seen by the complainant Manzoor Ahmad P.W.4 and Muhammad Javed P.W.5, who are real brothers and their testimony has not' been corroborated from any other independent source and mere evidence of last seen being a weak type is not sufficient to maintain the conviction for murder while against Mst. Fahmida, the only evidence is or motive which remained unproved during the trial. The complainant had himself exonerated the present appellants during the investigation and had implicated another set of 'the accused, therefore, I am convinced that the prosecution case has not been proved against the appellants beyond shadow of doubt, therefore, their appeals are allowed, conviction and sentence is set aside. Mst. Fahnuda is on bail, her surety bonds are discharged. The remaining appellants Manzoor Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad anti Mehmood Ahmad alias Mooda are ordered to be released from jail, forthwith if note required in any other case.