1991 PLP 331 (SCMR)

ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 6‑3‑1989. The facts, in brief, ate that on 2‑10‑1984 the petitioner lodged First Information Report at the Police Station Kotsamaba, District Rahimyar Khan, stating therein that his father Mukhtar Ali was running a grocery shop adjacent to his Baithak and used to sleep in front of the shop. On the preceding night, the petitioner went out of his house to awaken his father. He observed some stains of blood on the face of his father. There were injuries on his neck, face etc. In the F.I.R. it was stated that Abdul Hamid P.W. 7 a paternal aunt's son of the deceased had enmity with Muhammad Iqbal because the latter wanted to get a road sanctioned while Abdul Hamid resisted. It was further stated that Mushtaq Ahmad, respondent No.3 and Muhammad Ramzan, respondent No.1 had illicit connections with Mst. Surraya, respondent No.2, widow of Akbar Ali, a brother of deceased Mukhtar Ali. The trial Court convicted Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Surraya under section 302/34, PPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000 each or in default to suffer one year's R.I. each. It was further directed that half of fine, if recovered, be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation. Mushtaq Ahmad and Abdul Khaliq, co‑accused were, however, acquitted. A revision petition was filed for the enhancement of sentence awarded to Mst. Surraya and Muhammad Ramzan and against the acquittal of Mushtaq and Abdul Khaliq. The High Court accepted the appeal filed by Mst. Surraya and Muhammad Ramzan and the criminal revision was dismissed. The petitioner in this petition seeks reversal of the judgment of the High Court. Admittedly, it was an unseen incident. Abdul Hamid P.W‑7 has stated that Mst. Surraya had confessed her guilt before him. She had stated that she had illicit relation with Muhammad Ramzan. On the objection of Mukhtar Ali they bore grudge against him. The learned High Court rejected the statement of Abdul Hamid P.W. It was observed by the High Court that both Abdul Hamid P.W‑7 and Abdul Rehman P.W‑8 are the relatives of the deceased as well as of Mst. Surraya. It is not expected that a woman with grown up children had confessed that she was having illicit ties with Muhammad Ramzan, her village mate nor it was expected of these witnesses to detain her after the confessional statement when the police was present in the village. P.Ws 14 and 15 Muhammad Shafiq and Muhammad Ismail had deposed about the confessional statement of Ramzan. The statement was rejected on the ground that Muhammad Shafiq was posted at Shahar Sultan during the days of the incident. Muhammad Ramzan never informed him that he and Mst. Surraya had murdered Mukhtar Ali with hatchet. He did not depose about two hatchets. Like the confession of Mst. Surraya, Muhammad Shafiq and Muhammad Ismail both had stated that Muhammad Ramzan was produced before the police 15 to 20 minutes after his confession. Muhammad Ismail used to live at a distance of more than 200 miles from the place of occurrence. There was no necessity of confessing guilt by Muhammad Ramzan to this witness. He also admitted that despite the confession of the accused, he remained sitting in the drawing room of Shafiq P.W. Both these witnesses had made the similar statements about the confession of Mst. Surraya. The High Court has for sound reasons rejected the extra judicial confessions as they were not inspiring. The statements of the witnesses on this score could not be relied upon. The recoveries which were made after such a long delay and particularly when the articles were accessible to every one in the house, were not believed in view of the close relationship of Muhammad Javaid with the deceased. The recoveries could not be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. There was no strong evidence against the accused persons. In such circumstances, the acquittal of respondents 1. and 2 by the High Court is based on sound principle of criminal jurisprudence. It does not require reappraisal of evidence by this Court. The petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. N.H.Q./A‑792/S Leave refused.