1993 P Cr (PLP)

Nazir Ahmad Qureshi for the State. Date of hearing: 6th October, 1992. This is a revision against the acquittal of Mst. Saleema Bibi widow of Abdul Ghaffar from the charge under section 3Q2, P.P.C. for committing the murder of her husband Abdul Ghaffar, by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat vide judgment, dated 27-3-1985.

2. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision are that Abdul Ghaffar deceased was married to Mst. Saleema Bibi respondent, she developed illicit relations with one Muhammad Ishaq, husband of her sister and at one occasion said Muhammad Ishaq abducted Mst. Saleema Bibi but later on was returned through intervention of Bratheri. On 17-12-1982 at 7-30 a.m. Abdul Ghaffar deceased went to the fields and after a short while Kalu informed Abdul Sattar that Abdul Ghaffar, his brother was lying dead in the area of village Thatha and he had vomited before he died. Abdul Sattar complainant went to the spot and thereafter lodged report of the occurrence. The case was registered on the statement of Abdul Sattar vide F.I.R. Exh.P.F. recorded by Safdar Inayat S.I. P.W.12 at 9-00 a.m. on the same day. He despatched the dead body for post mortem examination and took into possession the contents of vomiting vide memo. Exh.P.F. He however, after usual investigation found Muhammad Ishaq innocent but challaned Mst. Saleema Bibi to face the trial.

3. Post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted by Dr. Nazir Ahmad Anwar P.W.1 on 17-12-1982 at 3-00 p.m. The contents of the stomach and other parts were sent to the Chemical Examiner for detection of poison and the report of Chemical Examiner was positive. Abdul Sattar complainant was examined as P.W.5. He proved the contents of the F.I.R. and stated that the respondent committed the murder of Abdul Ghaffar for the reason of having illicit intimacy with Muhammad Ishaq, her brother-in-law. Syed Mehtab Ali Shah, P.W.2 recorded the confessional statement (Exh.P.G.) of Mst. Saleema respondent, who denied the allegation of illicit liaison with Muhammad Ishaq and also denied to administer poison to her husband to commit his murder. She stated that her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded under coercion and threats of dire consequences. 3-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the illicit intimacy of the respondent-accused is proved from the statements of Abdul Sattar and Fazal Din P.Ws. and from the fact that on an earlier occasion Mst. Saleema was abducted by Muhammad Ishaq and was returned through the intervention of Bratheri. He submits that the deceased and the respondent were living in the same house as husband and wife and the deceased immediately after taking breakfast went to the field where he vomited and died which is a strong circumstance to suggest that deceased was administered poison by the respondent. He submits that the confessional statement although retracted but is corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and the statement of P.W.5 which proves the guilt of appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that there is no evidence available on record to connect the respondent with the commission of offence. Retracted confessional statement is not sufficient to make basis for the conviction. He states that in fad this is a case of no evidence and the acquittal of the respondent is not liable to be disturbed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. According to the prosecution the deceased was administered poison by the respondent in the food taken by him at the breakfast and after some time he vomited and died. The question whether poison was administered by the respondent in the food or the food itself was poisonous is shrouded in mystery, therefore, it cannot be definitely said that poison was administered by the respondent. Moreover, it is not known whether the deceased after leaving the house had taken something or not and the possibility of taking something having poisonous element cannot be ruled out, therefore the factum of administering poison to the deceased by the respondent is not established beyond reasonable doubt. The matter of illicit relations of the respondent with Muhammad Ishaq could not in fad be a reason to do away with the deceased as it is not the prosecution case that Muhammad Ishaq wanted to marry with the respondent. He rather being brother-in-law of the respondent could not marry with her without first divorcing his wife. In fact the respondent could more easily carry her relations with Muhammad Ishaq as a married lady instead of a widow. The motive to remove the deceased from the scene does not appeal to mind in the circumstances of the case. The occurrence took place on 17-12-1982 and the respondent was taken into custody on 2-5-1983. Her statement was recorded after about 12 days of her arrest and thereafter she was again given to police custody. Thus the confessional statement of respondent-lady after 12 days of police custody cannot be considered a statement of free will and voluntary particularly in view of the fact that there being no other evidence available against the respondent, the investigating officer managed this piece of evidence. With the exclusion of confessional statement and motive, there is no other evidence to connect the respondent with the commission of offence. The acquittal of the respondent is not liable to be interfered. For the foregoing reasons I see no force in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./A-276/L Revision dismissed.