This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 1906 of 2001 and Criminal Revision No.917 of 2001 directed against the judgment dated 20-10-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shorkot, District Jhang whereby he convicted both the appellants under section 302(b), P.P.C. To undergo life imprisonment with compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000 each as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default six months' S.I. And under section 201, P.P.C. They both were sentenced to five years' R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The facts in brief of the prosecution case as narrated by the complainant are that on 23-2-1998 he alongwith Ghulam Muhammad was going to Adda Fatehpur from his house. They were going on the bank of canal. After covering distance of -- square, he saw a dead body in Rajbah. He left Ghulam Muhammad at the spot and he went to police station and informed the police about the incident.
3. The police after thorough inquiry challaned both the accused/appellants for the murder of Karamat Ali deceased who was identified by his brother Mehmood and Mureed. The motive behind this occurrence as stated by the brothers of the deceased later on, was a dispute on loan amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000.
4. After getting information about the occurrence Muhammad Ashraf, S.-I. Got completed all the necessary formalities and thereafter he proceeded to the spot and after examining the dead body he prepared inquest report Exh.PC, injury statement Exh.PA. He also prepared notice 'HUE & CRY'
(Exh.PL) and circulated the same amongst all the adjacent police station. Ultimately the accused/appellants were challaned and were sent to the judicial lock-up to face the trial.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution has produced as many as 12 witnesses including Doctor, Inquiry Officer and other formal and relevant witnesses. Thereafter statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that it was an un-witnessed occurrence, that there is no eye--witness of this case and that there is no direct evidence against the present appellant, even there is no evidence of last seen, extra--judicial confession or any recovery on the pointation of the appellant. The witnesses produced by the prosecution are interested and related to the deceased, that no case is made out, against the appellants and the appellants are entitled to acquittal.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant submits that the appellants were apprehended in another case and during investigation of that case they disclosed that they have committed the murder of the deceased Karamat Ali and then the appellants, were arrested by the relevant police Station in the presence of the police before whom they have confessed their guilt, that they have committed the murder of Karamat Ali deceased. Learned counsel submits that Mushtaq Ahmad P. W.7 and Sana Ullah, S.-I., P.W.11 are independent witnesses having no enmity against the appellants and they have named the accused/appellants as accused in this case.
Adds that the appellants have pointed out the place where they murdered the deceased and thrown his dead body, that there is no reason to falsely implicate the appellants in this case, that the deceased was brutally murdered by the appellant.
8. The learned State Counsel on the other submits that there is not an iota of evidence on record to connect the appellants with the commission of murder.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record available on the file. According to Zulfiqar P.W.5 who was Foreman in Batala Steal Mills, the occurrence had taken place on 20-2-1998, dead body was recovered on 23-2-1998. Information about the dead boy was given by Faiz Ahmad complainant P.W.2, P.W.4 Mahmood is brother of th-- e deceased, according to him the deceased, his brother, was a labourer and version of the prosecution that he (the deceased) had given a loan of Rs.1,00,000 to Saleem appellant totally seems to be a false motive and is unbelievable and can be thrown easily, There is not an iota of evidence even of extra--judicial confession allegedly made by the P.Ws. Before the police because that is totally inadmissible. As far as evidence of Mushtaq Ahmad and Sanaullah, S.-I. Is concerned, any statement or confession made before the police is inadmissible. There is no evidence of last seen. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the appellants. Learned counsel for the State is right in submitting before this Court that there is not an iota of evidence in this regard against the appellants.
10. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also going through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court I am of the considered opinion that this is a case of no evidence and in such like cases conviction and sentence cannot be sustained. In this view of the matter this appeal is e accepted and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants is set aside. The appellants are ordered to be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.