' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,1337 of 2002 filed by Atta Muhammad appellant who was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with further direction to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation, in default six months' S.I., by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal . Vide judgment, dated 24-6-2002. Criminal Revision No,978 of 2002 filed by the complainant shall also be disposed of through this single judgment."
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 4-9-1999 at 11 a.m., Altaf Hussain (deceased) was sleeping in the Dera. The cots of Manzoor and Rafique were also near to his cot. The complainant Mst. Siftan alongwith her daughter Kaneez was sleeping inside the Dera near the door. A lantern was lit at the door of the Haveli when suddenly Mst. Siftan and Kaneez heard the fire report. They both came out and witnessed that after firing upon, Altaf Hussain (deceased) Jabbar armed with Sota and Ghulam Hussain armed with fire-arm were going towards Chak No,10/SB while Ashiq accused armed with fire-arms was running towards Kotmomin and Atta Muhammad was making noise near the dead body that someone has murdered Altaf Hussain. Manzoor and Rafique told the complainant and her daughter that they were awakening and their faces were towards Altaf Hussain when suddenly there came Ashiq Hussain and Ghulam Hussain armed with rifle .222, Jabbar armed with Sota and Atta Muhammad from behind the wall. Ashiq Hussain fired a shot with his rifle .222 from the back side which crossed the chest from the front side. The second shot fired by Ghulam Hussain also entered from the backside and crossed the body and made its exit from the front of the chest. The third fire of Ashiq Hussain crossed the right arm through and through of Altaf Hussain deceased, Altaf Hussain fell down on the ground and received injuries on his nose, left eye and forearm. The injured succumbed to his injuries at the spot.
' The motive alleged was that the accused in order to usurp and take forcible possession of the property of Altaf Hussain committed his murder.
3. Investigation of the case was conducted by Muhammad Iqbal, S.-I. (C.W.1). He, after registration of the F.I.R., went to the place of occurrence, took into possession the dead body of the deceased, prepared injury statement Exh.P.C., inquest report Exh.P.D., took into possession the blood-stained earth vide memo. C.W.1/B, recorded supplementary statement of Atta Muhammad, author of the F.I.R. And on 9-10-1999 arrested Ghulam Rasool and Muhammad Iqbal as accused in this case. The remaining investigation was conducted by Muhammad Salabat Khan S.-I. (C.W.4). He, on 3-3-2000 arrested Muhammad Ashiq and Ghulam Hussain. During interrogation, Muhammad Ashiq led to the recovery of .222 rifles which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.A. After completion of the investigation, Ghulam Hussain and Ashiq Hussain were challaned. Mst. Siftan being dissatisfied with the police investigation, filed a private complaint against Ashiq Hussain, Ghulam Hussain, Jabar Hussain and Atta Muhammad. After preliminary inquiry, all the four accused were summoned and charge-sheeted.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case produced 10 P.Ws. And 8 C.Ws. The learned D.D.A.
Tendered in evidence reports of the Chemical Examiner, Serologist and Forensic Science Laboratory as Exh.P.G. Exh.P.H. And Exh.P.I. Respectively. Statements of the accused were recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. After conclusion of the trial, only the present appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. In support of this appeal, learned counsel submits that originally the F.I.R. Was lodged by the present appellant for the murder of his brother Altaf Hussain against unknown persons but description of the accused was given in the F.I.R. And later on Mst. Siftan who is mother of the deceased as also of the appellant filed a private complaint on 28-6-2000, that is, nine months after the occurrence in which she named Manzoor and Rafique as eye-witnesses. It may be noted that Manzoor is son-in-law of Mst. Siftan while Rafique is friend of Manzoor. Jabar son of the present appellant, a co-accused, was acquitted by the trial Court while Ashiq Hussain and Ghulam Hussain to whom specific injuries were attributed in the complaint filed by Mst. Siftan are at large. Further submits that Atta Muhammad the present appellant neither raised Lalkara nor any overt act is attributed to him. Adds that Manzoor an eye-witness is son-in-law of Mst. Siftan while Rafique P.W.
Is not the resident of place of occurrence and that Muhammad Ashraf who is brother of the deceased while appearing as C.W.3 did not support the case of the prosecution. Further adds that Muhammad Iqbal and Salabat Khan C.Ws.l and 4 respectively had admitted that Manzoor Ahmad had been appearing during the course of investigation of the F.I.R. But he did not take the name of Atta Muhammad, the present appellant as one of the assailants. Learned counsel lastly submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant and he is entitled to acquittal.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that no case under section 302(b), P.P.C. Is made out against the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant who has filed criminal revision for enhancement of sentence of Atta Muhammad convict, submits that Atta Muhammad having facilitated the commission of offence is the main accused and he did this in order to usurp the property of his deceased brother who was bachelor. Further submits that Muhammad Rafique being an independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. Adds that Muhammad lqbal and Ghulam Rasool were made as accused in the supplementary statement but Atta Muhammad entered into a compromise with them and they were let off by the police.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. There is not an iota of evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime of murder of the deceased.
Muhammad Ashraf who is real brother of the deceased and appeared as C.W.3 has not supported the version of Mst. Siftan. Both Manzoor and Rafique who were alleged to be present at the spot, kept mum for nine months. Injuries on the person of the deceased are attributed to Ashiq Hussain and Ghulam Hussain. They both are sons of Atta Muhammad, the present appellant, thus, possibility of his false implication cannot be ruled out. Jabar a co-accused of the appellant who was armed with a Sota has been acquitted. The case of the appellant who did not commit any overt act qua the deceased is on better footing to that of Jabar who has been acquitted by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the State has admitted and rightly so. That no case under section 302, P.P.C. Is made out against the appellant. Learned counsel for the complainant has failed to point out any evidence on record to connect the appellant with the crime of murder of the deceased.
' As a result of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has not been successful in proving its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt rather doubts are floating on the surface of the record. While extending the benefit of doubt, I accept the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the trial Court. The appellant is behind the bars and he shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. Criminal Revision No,978 of 2002 filed by the complainant is dismissed.