2026 PLP 386 (YLR)

Shehram Sarwar Ch., J.

Zahida Bibi alias Babi (appellant) along with her co-accused namely Abdul Ghaffar, Shahida Bibi and Khursheed Bibi was tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shakargarh in a private complaint under Sections 302 and 34 P.P.C instituted by Muhammad Afzal, complainant (PW.2) being dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the police in case FIR No.101 dated 27.03.2012, offence under Sections 302 and 34 P.P.C registered at Police Station Saddar Shakargarh District Narowal for the murder of Sobia Akram paternal niece of complainant. Vide judgment dated 31.12.2013 passed by the learned trial court, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302(b) P.P.C and sentenced to imprisonment for life, with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the legal heirs of deceased and in default whereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the appeal in hand. Through the same judgment learned trial Court acquitted Abdul Ghaffar, Shahida Bibi and Khursheed Bibi co-accused of the appellant by extending them benefit of doubt and against their acquittal the complainant filed Crl. Appeal No.15 of 2014 which was dismissed in limine to the extent of Shahida Bibi and Khursheed Bibi vide order dated 19.09.2019 whereas notice was issued to Abdul Ghaffar, respondent No.1 who has died and this appeal to his extent has been disposed of vide order dated 14.10.2024. The complainant has also filed Crl. Revision No.87 of 2014 for enhancement of sentence of appellant. Since both these matters have arisen out of the same judgment, therefore, are being decided together through this single judgment.

2. Prosecution story, as set out in the FIR (Ex.PD/1) registered on the written application (Ex.PD) of Muhammad Afzal, complainant (PW.2) is that on 27.03.2012 at about 8:00 a.m. he received information that his paternal niece had died. Father of Sobia Akram was residing in Lahore who was informed through telephone. Thereafter the complainant along with other family members reached village Jatla for the funeral ceremony of Sobia Akram. When the complainant party reached in the house of Sobia Akram, the accused persons namely Mst. Khursheed Bibi, Abdul Ghaffar, Shahida Bibi and Zahida Bibi were present there. They inquired from them and also saw burnt dead-body of Sobia. When cause of death was inquired from the above named persons they firstly hesitated but later on disclosed that Sobia Akram has been burnt owing to short circuit. Complainant, Muhammad Yaseen and Muhammad Arif checked the wiring, fridge and electric fans all were in working condition. Again they asked from the accused about cause of death of Sobia where upon Zahida Bibi etc pushed them and also extended them threats. The complainant has further alleged in the FIR that prior to the instant occurrence the accused persons used to torture and taunt Sobia for not giving birth to a male child and it was his firm belief that the appellant and her co-accused committed the incident.

3. Being dissatisfied with the investigation conducted by the police, Muhammad Afzal, complainant instituted a private complaint titled as "Muhammad Afzal v. Abdul Ghaffar and others", almost on the same facts as mentioned in the FIR.

4. Arguments heard, record perused.

5. Admittedly, Muhammad Afzal, complainant (PW.2) and Muhammad Arif (PW.5) were not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The accused persons informed them about the occurrence whereupon they reached the spot and reported the matter to the police. They did not saw the appellant and his co-accused while committing the murder of Sobia Akram (deceased). Furthermore, the role played by the appellant and her co-accused in the incident in issue had not been mentioned in the first information report. The prosecution case is mainly based upon the testimony of Ayesha (PW 3) daughter of deceased. It was her claim that on the fateful night she perceived the shrikes of her mother and saw that Abdul Ghaffar was tying her mother with rope. Zahida Bibi alias Babi (appellant) poured petrol on her mother and thereafter she set her mother into fire. The name of said PW is not mentioned in the FIR. It is also not mentioned in the FIR that the said PW was present at the time of incident. She was introduced in this case at some subsequent stage in order to strengthen the prosecution case against the appellant and her co-accused. Thereafter, the complainant instituted a private complaint (Exh.PE) on 23.5.2012 with a delay of about two months after the occurrence in which he introduced Ayesha (PW.3) as eye-witness of the occurrence. The prosecution has not given any plausible reasoning qua such delay meaning thereby that the private complaint has been filed after due deliberations and consultation just to fill up the lacunas left in the FIR. I fortify my view from the dictum laid down in case law titled as "Muhammad Azad v. Ahmad Ali and 2 other" (PLD 2003 SC 14). The disturbing part of the ocular account is that on the basis of the same statement made by the Ayesha (PW.3) co-accused of the appellant namely Abdul Ghaffar, who actively participated in the occurrence and tied Sobia Akram with rope on the spot has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. It is settled by now that the evidence which was found doubtful to the extent of co-accused of the appellant cannot be believed against the appellant and the conviction and sentence of appellant are not sustainable on the same set of evidence. A reference in this respect may be made to the case of "Pervaiz Khan and another v. The State" (2022 SCMR 393). The medical evidence produced by the prosecution was not of much avail to the prosecution because the murder in issue had remained unwitnessed and, thus, the medical evidence could not point an accusing finger towards the appellant implicated in this case. Reliance is placed on case law titled as "Muhammad Saleem v. Shabbir Ahmad and others" (2016 SCMR 1605).

6. As far as the defence plea taken by the appellant in her statement under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, since the prosecution evidence is doubtful in nature, therefore, there is no need to discuss the same which is exculpatory in nature.

7. I have considered all the pros and cons of this case and have come to this irresistible conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. It is, by now well established principle of law that it is the prosecution, which has to prove its case against the accused by standing on its own legs and it cannot take any benefit from the weaknesses of the case of the defence. In the instant case, the prosecution remained failed to discharge its responsibility of proving the case against the appellant. It is also well established that if there is a single circumstance which creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the same is sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused, whereas, the instant case is replete with number of circumstances which have created serious doubt about the prosecution story. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the case law reported as "Muhammad Akram v. The State" (2009 SCMR 230).

8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal in hand filed by Zahida Bibi alias Babi (appellant) is allowed, conviction and sentence awarded to her vide judgment dated 31.12.2013 passed by the learned trial Court are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against her while extending her benefit of doubt. The appellant is in jail. She shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

9. In view of above discussion, Crl. Revision No.87 of 2014 for enhancement sentence of appellant having no merits is dismissed. JK/Z-16/L Appeal allowed.