' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,326/J of 2001 and Criminal Revision No,800 of 2001 directed against the judgment dated 4-10-2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, whereby he convicted the appellant Muhammad Riaz under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with direction to pay Rs,1,00,000 as compensation as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default six months' S.I. He was also convicted under section 394, P.P.C. And was sentenced to undergo 5 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,10,000 or in default three months' S.I. Under section 201, P.P.C. To suffer five years' R.I. With fine of Rs,10,000 or in default 3 months' S.I. And under section 404 he was sentenced to undergo 2 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,5,000 or in default 3 months' S.I. Sikandar Hayat appellant was convicted under section 201, P.P.C. And was sentenced to undergo 5 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,10,000 or in default three months' S.I.
Under section 404, P.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo two years' R.I. With fine of Rs,5.000 or in default three months' S.I. All the sentences awarded to both the appellants were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The facts of the instant case as narrated by the complainant Javaid Iqbal in the F.I.R. Exh.P.K. Are that he was informed by the Chowkidar Muhammad Arif of Chak No,90/SB, Sargodha that there was lying a decomposed corpse near the canal bank of Chak No,90/S.B. And he alongwith Chowkidar and one Shafqat went to the spot and saw a skeleton without head wrapped in a woollen Chaddar. Matter was reported to the police.
3. After completing all the necessary formalities Muhammad Amir A.S.-I. P.W.17 went to the spot. He prepared injury statement Exh.P.M., inquest report Exh.P.N. He also received last-worn clothes of deceased vide memo. Exh.P.O. He recorded the statement of Nazar Muhammad Zulfiqar regarding Wajtakkar and statements of Sadar Din and Muhammad Abdullah regarding extra-judicial confession of Muhammad Riaz accused before them. He also recorded statements of Falak Sher and Ahmad Yar regarding extra-judicial confession of Sikandar Hayat accused before them. Both the appellants were arrested on 23-4-2000 by Muhammd Ashraf, Inspector S.H.O. And on 30-4- 2000 Muhammad Riaz appellant while in police custody got recovered Toka P.8, Sofa cover P.9, Sofa Seats P.10/1-2 and on the same day Muhammad Riaz led the police to get recover Rs,10,000 with a silver ring, purse and photostat of I.D. Card of Muhammad Nawaz deceased. Sikandar Hayat appellant on the same day while in police custody got recovered motorcycle from his house, registration book and Rs,5,000 and a photograph of Muhammad Nawaz deceased. Ultimately both the appellants were challaned under sections 302/394/201 and 404, P.P.C. For committing Qatl-e- Amd of Muhammad Nawaz deceased by inflicting him injuries with Toka and also committing robbery of Rs,28,000 alongwith purse of Muhammad Nawaz with I.D. Card and a ring and challan was submitted for trial.
4. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 20 witnesses including Doctor, Investigating Officer, and other relevant and formal witnesses. After tendering in evidence reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.Y., and that of Serologist Exh.P.Z., learned D.D.A. Closed the prosecution evidence. Thereafter, statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of this appeal submits that it is an unwitnessed occurrence, that for the two long months the real brother of the deceased did not lodge the F.I.R.
And also not lodged a complaint in the police station for the recovery of his brother namely Muhammad Nawaz deceased. He submits that even the dead body was not identifiable; that all the witnesses produced by the prosecution are related inter se. He submits that no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. Adds that the appellants have been falsely involved in this case and that no case is made out against the appellants.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that there is no evidence of last-seen against the appellants but concedes that it is not a strong case in which sentence can be maintained.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant on the other hand submits that there is not only evidence of last seen, extra-judicial confession, recovery on the pointation of the appellants coupled with the fact of recovery of seat covers which were stained with blood and Toka, that all the chains in this case are interconnected which lead to the conclusion that it were the appellants who have committed the murder of the deceased, that mere relationship of the witnesses with deceased is no criteria to discard the prosecution evidence, that the P. Ws. Have no. Enmity whatsoever with the deceased so there was no question of false implication of the appellants. Admittedly the deceased was friend of the accused/appellant Riaz. He submits that statements of eye-witnesses are confidence-inspiring and conviction can be maintained on this evidence.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record of the instant case. The case of the prosecution is that on 11-1-2000 the deceased was taken by Muhammad Riaz appellant on the pretext that the deceased wanted to purchase a motorcycle and he also got Rs,28,000 from his brother Allah Yar. The dead body of the deceased was recovered on 10-3-2000 and F.I.R. Was lodged by Javaid Iqbal resident of Chak No,90/S.B. It is very strange that Muhammad Nawaz who was real brother of Allah Yar in whose presence and also in the presence of Ahmad Yar P.W.2 the deceased was lastly seen did not lodge any report with any police station for the recovery of Muhammad Nawaz deceased for a long two months, brother of the deceased even did not approach this Court through a writ petition for registration of a case against the culprits. He even did not submit any application to any higher Police Officer in this regard, even the F.I.R. Which was lodged after two months of the occurrence was lodged by a stranger and not by the brother of the deceased. This main fact demolishes the prosecution story.
All the prosecution witnesses are closely related to the deceased and no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. Dead body was never recovered on the pointation of the appellants. As far as extrajudicial confession is concerned the conduct of the witnesses of extra- judicial confession is most unnatural. Muhammad Iqbal who was closely related to the deceased in whose presence the extrajudicial confession was made by Muhammad Riaz appellant, neither apprehended Muhammad Riaz nor informed the police. There is also another witness of extra- judicial confession/about Sikandar Hayat, namely Ahad who is real uncle of the deceased and his conduct is also most unnatural. He also did not apprehend Sikandar Hayat appellant nor he informed the police. As far as recovery of registration book, Identity Card is concerned those were not expensive items which the appellant should have kept with them. It means that same were planted on them. As far as recovery of silver ring and clothes of the deceased are concerned, the same were never mentioned by Allah Yar, the real brother of the deceased in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. Even.The State Counsel did not support the prosecution case with whole-heartedly. Learned counsel for the appellant during the argument has admitted that he is not in a position to press the appeal against Sikandar Hayat appellant.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also going through the record, I am of the view that it is a case in which there are many doubts and benefit of doubt always goes in favor of the accused not as a grace but as a right. In this view of the matter, while extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants, I allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned trial Court. The appellants are behind the bars. They shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.