1982 P Cr (PLP)

The medical evidence shows that the deceased Abdul Kadir died due to injury to his heart, shock and haemorrhage. Dr Abdul Majeed, who performed the autopsy, has been examined and he has stated as under :‑ On 2nd June, 1976 1 was Medical Officer in L.

10. C. Hospital Hyderabad. On that day A. S. I. P. S. Latifabad, referred dead body of the deceased Abdul Kadir son of Nazar Muhammad for post‑mortem examination. The body was identified to me by Abdul Hameed brother of the deceased. I started post‑mortem examination at 11.15 a.m. and finished it in about 1 hours. The body was of a male Muslim of average built aged about 25 years. Rigor Mortis was present in the entire body. On external examina tion, I found the follwing injuries :‑ (1) Stitched wound above left nipple 1 long. Stitched wound on left scapula 1 long. On dissection, I found injury No. 1 was cavity deep. Piercing through 4th and 5th ribs on left side. Injury No. 2 was only muscle deep. On internal examination I found as follows:‑ (1) Left therasic cavity was full of blood. (2) Through and through cut in left verticle of heart. (3) Stomach was full with fluid food particles. (4) Bladder was empty. (5) Remaining organs were normal. Opinion :‑-- All injuries were anti‑mortem and appeard to have been caused with sharp cutting weapon like a knife. Death was due to external injury No. 1 which resulted in injury to heart, shock and haemor rhage ending, in death. Injury No. 1 was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 2 was simple in nature. Time between death and post‑mortem was about 12 hours. Time between injury and death was within an hour. I issued such P. M. notes. I produce the same as Exh.

20. It is the same and bears my signature." The accused however denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. The point for determination is if the accused inflicted injuries to the deceased who died as a result of it ? At the trial, the prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused has examined the complainant Bashir Ahmed who is not an eye‑witness. He has stated the facts given by him in the F. I. R. He has also stated that the S. H. O. had inquired from the injured and reduced it to writing. P. Ws. Muhammad Yaseen, Ali Hasan, Abdul Latif and Ghayasuddin, who are eye‑witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile and so also the only corroborative witness Naeem Khan P. W. 9 Rehmat Ali mashir, has also not supported the case as he has stated that the accused was already under arrest at the Police Station when he had reached there. He has also not supported the production of recovery of knife and clothes by the accused in his presence. Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that there is only uncorroborated evidence of the complainant Bashir Ahmed who is brother of the deceased and not an eye‑witness of the occurrence. All the eye‑witnesses have given complete go‑bye to the prosecution case and so also the corroborative witness Naeem Khan and mashir, Rehmat Ali. The appellant, therefore, has not been connected with the offence and is entitled to acquittal under the circumstances of the case. Mr. Ghulamally H. Agha, the learned counsel appearing for the State is also of the view that all the eye‑witnesses have not supported the pro secution case and the accused is, therefore, entitled to acquittal. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the A appellant as well as State. I have read the evidence on record. There are 164, Cr. P. C: statements of the P. Ws. which have been recorded by Muhammad Ibrahim A. C. M., P. W. 12 who has also been examined. The statements of P. Ws. Muhammad Yaseen, Naeem Khan, Ghayasuddin have been recorded in absence of the accused whereas 164, Cr. P. C. statement of Ali Hassan P. W. 8 is not signed by him. There remains only 164, Cr. P. C. statement of Abdul Latif P. W. 11 which has been o: course recorded in presence of the accused. But this witness does not implicate the accused as he has stated in his statement under section

164. Cr. P. C. that he did not see anybody causing injury to the deceased. Therefore cumulative effect of the evidence on the case as a whole is that there is no convincing evidence to connect the accused with the offence. I, therefore allow his appeal and acquit him. The convictions and sentences awarded to him are set aside. The judgment acquitting the accused was announced by short order earlier and these are the reasons for it. Appeal allowed.