This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 29-1-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif by which the appellant has been found guilty under section 302(b), P.P.C. And has been sentenced to imprisonment for life with a direction for payment of Rs.1,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in case of default in payment of compensation he has to further undergo six months' R.I., Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has been extended to the appellant.
2. This judgment has arisen out of F.I.R. No. 145 (Exh.PB) registered on 12-4-1999 at Police Station Farid Nagar, District Pakpattan Sharif on the statement of Muhammad Amir P.W.3 (complainant) father of Muhammad Arshad deceased recorded by Muhammad Shahzad Gul Inspector P.W.7. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That the complainant owned two trucks, one was driven by him and the other truck bearing Registration No.3455-GLT was being driven by Muhammad Arshad son of the complainant. Shaukat Ali appellant was the driver who left the job two years ago. Muhammad Arshad son of the complainant also went with him and they used to run the truck in Arifwala jointly.
10/15 days ago Muhammad Arshad came back. In the night between 11/12-4-1999 Arshad and the complainant parked their trucks. At Adda Baba Farid Goods Pakpattan. Meanwhile Shaukat Ali appellant came and both Muhammad Arshad and the appellant Shaukat Ali slept on a cot in front of the truck. The complainant alongwith his brother Muhammad Nawaz slept in the Adda. At 4-30 a.m. On hearing the noise of the start of truck the complainant were up and saw that Shaukat Ali appellant had started the truck bearing Registration No.3455-GLT and was trying to pass the truck over Muhammad Arshad whereupon the cot was broken and he received injuries on the head and other parts of his body. Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Yousaf also came at the spot.
They intervened in order to apprehend Shaukat Ali appellant but he succeeded in running away.
Muhammad Arshad died at the spot. The motive of the occurrence has been alleged that Shaukat wanted to take Muhammad Arshad again with him and due to this reason had murdered him. The appellant was arrested on 3-5-1999 and after the completion of the investigation report under section 173, Cr:P.C. Was submitted, charge was framed which was denied and the prosecution produced seven P.Ws. The accused in his statement has denied the allegations but did not appear in his defence nor produced any defence witnesses. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments has passed the impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that from the perusal of the statements of P.W.3 Muhammad Amir and P.W.4 Muhammad Nawaz it becomes crystal clear that both of them were not present at the spot at the time of occurrence and have falsely implicated the appellant in this case on suspicion due to the previous annoyance of the complainant that his son Arshad had gone with the appellant and was residing with him against the wishes of the parents. It is further contended that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged after preliminary investigation securing the cross-examination P.W.2 Muhammad Salim admitted that he rang to the police and the police came at the spot. It is further contended that Muhammad Nawaz P.W.4 though is not related to the complainant yet due to the friendship he has appeared and in fact he was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. It is further contended that the eye-witnesses are in contradiction with each other on material points. It is also contended that the ocular account is also in contradiction with the medical evidence and the appeal is liable to be accepted by setting aside the judgment. It is further contended that the story of the prosecution is improbable- and is not worthy of reliance.
4. On the either hand learned counsel for the complainant has opposed this appeal on the ground that sufficient evidence is on the record to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime and his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Shows that he was present at the spot as he has stated that it was an accidental case.
5. Learned State Counsel also supports the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant and has opposed this appeal.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the record carefully. The ocular account consists of the statements of Muhammad Amir and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws.3 and 4 respectively. Both are real brothers and are related with each other and also with the deceased closely. They claimed that they were present at the spot and after hearing the noise attracted to the spot and saw the appellant trying to run over his truck on the cot of the deceased. After the perusal of their statements minutely as also the statement of Dr. Muhammad Younas P.W.5 according to which brain matter was still intact, it seems that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner as narrated by the witnesses. It is also notable that every one were up except the deceased who was sleeping just in front of the truck which was not only started but also collided with the cot on which the deceased was sleeping. Though both the eye-witnesses are not inimical to the appellant but had annoyance against him as he had previously taken away the deceased, son of the complainant and nephew of Muhammad Nawaz aged 17 years and deceased remained living with the appellant against the wishes of these witnesses hence the possibility of introduction of false story by the complainant by concocting the prosecution version cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise during the cross-examination the complainant made some improvements in his statement i.e. In the F.I.R. The complainant has stated that the deceased and the appellant were sleeping on the same cot while during the cross---examination has stated that the appellant came and he was sitting alongwith the deceased. It is admitted by the complainant that the other persons were also present at the spot as the same was an Adda of trucks. None of the independent witnesses in spite of their availability proved on the record were never joined by the Investigating Officer nor any one was made a witness except the two real brothers (P.Ws.3 and 4). It is also not believable that the appellant had run away from the spot while alighting from the driving seat in spite of the fact that the complainant and other eye-witnesses had attracted to the spot.
Admittedly the appellant was not armed with any weapon and was on foot when he left the truck at the same place. Nothing was recovered from the appellant in order to provide corroboration to the ocular account. No other circumstances are available which can be used as corroboration to the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4. The registration of the F.I.R. Seems to be in a doubtful manner and after thorough investigation as P.W.2 Muhammad Salim has admitted during the cross- examination that he rang up to the police regarding the incident and the police came at the spot early in the morning. P. W .3 Muhammad Amir also admits during the cross-examination that Muhammad Salim informed the police about the incident on telephone and Muhammad Shahzad Gul Inspector alongwith the Constable reached at the spot on the telephonic information of Muhammad Salim reaching there at 5-30 a.m. And the Police Inspector inspected the injuries of the deceased, inquired from them about the detail of-the occurrence and then he (P.W.3), Muhammad Yousaf and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws. Told the detail of occurrence to Shahzad Gul, S.- I. At the Adda. Thereafter the S.-I. Recorded his (P. W .3) statement at the Adda where the occurrence had taken place and he signed the same there, Hence the story that the F.I.R. Was lodged at 5-00 p.m. Is belied. The other contradiction, on the material points has been duly confronted as in the F.I.R. The complainant has stated that Arshad used to drive the truck but during cross-examination admitted that Arshad had no driving licence and had never driven the truck independently. The other P.W. Muhammad Nawaz who appeared as P.W.4 is resident of three kilometres away from the place of occurrence and has failed to show the plausible explanation regarding his presence at the time of occurrence and admitted that Arshad was living with the appellant. He was also found contradictory on some points and was duly confronted when stated that he had not got recorded in his statement under section 161. Cr.P.C. That he were up on the noise of the start of the truck which finds mentioned in his statement Exh.DA. He also admitted that 22/23 trucks were standing parked at Adda Baba Farid Goods on the fateful night and there were also shopkeepers and employees of the Adda but they did not were up. P.W.3 has stated that one driver and one cleaner of each truck were on the Adda at the time of the incident. From the perusal of the statements of these eye--witnesses it seems that P.Ws. 3 and 4 had not witnessed the occurrence but subsequently got registered the case against the appellant due to suspicion. In such circumstances ocular account alone is not sufficient to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime, when the presence of the witnesses at the spot is doubtful, unless was corroborated by other circumstances and more-so the medical evidence is also not fully in line with the ocular account as during post-mortem the brain matter was found intact, whereas the allegation is that the appellant had tried to pass the truck over the deceased who was sleeping on a cot which had also broken. In such circumstances the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is accepted the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge by extending him the benefit of doubt. He is in custody and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
8. Since the impugned judgment of conviction has been set aside, Criminal Revision No.74 of 2000 filed by Muhammad Amir complainant for the enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant has become infructuous which is dismissed as such. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.