1997 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Hussain son of Ali Muhammad, has filed this petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. against judgment, dated 8-5-1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, whereby he acquitted Nasrullah alias Nasar son of Peer Mahi and Tariq Salim son of Muhammad Saleem, while giving them benefit of doubt, in a case F.I.R. Exh.P.D./1, under section 302/34, RP.C. and under section 14, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VI of 1979, registered with Police Station Qila Didar Singh, District Gujranwala, on the statement Exh. P.D. made by Muhammad Ashiq son of Nazar Muhammad, for an occurrence which took place in the area of Noorpur, near Canal Bank, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Didar Singh, for causing the murder of Mst. Shagufta Bibi daughter of Muhammad Hussain. -

2. The judgment, dated 8-5-1994 has been assailed in this revision petition.

3. The facts, in brief, of the prosecution case are that on 13-6-1991, Lambardar of Village Thari Gilla, got his statement Exh. P.D. recorded stating therein that he had seen, while going to his Dera, a dead body of a young woman lying on the southern side of the canal bank. The statement Exh. P.D. was recorded by Riaz All, S.-I., (P.W.10) while he was present at Lorry Adda of Qilla Didar Singh. The statement so recorded was sent to the police station by Riaz Ali, S.-I. for the registration of a formal F.I.R. The formal F.I.R. Exh.P.D./1 was recorded by Zulfiqar Ali (P.W.3). He, thereafter, assumed the investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence. He, at the spot, prepared inquest report Exh. P.F. and injury statement Exh. P.G. The dead body was escorted by a constable to mortuary for post-mortem examination. The blood stained earth was collected from the place of occurrence and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. The statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. were also recorded by him at the spot on the same day. The last-worn clothes were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.J. Muhammad Hussain, father (P.W.5), Manzooran Bibi, mother (P.W.4) and Mst. Amina Bibi, paternal-cousin, (P.W.6) of the deceased respectively came to the police station on 14-6-1991 and identified the last-worn clothes and photographs of Mst. Shagufta, deceased. The Investigating Officer got all the memos. of recoveries attested by the witnesses. After the accomplishment of usual investigation, the challan was prepared against respondents Nos.1 and 2 for onward submission before the trial Court. It was presented accordingly. Formal charge was framed under section 302/34, P.P.C. against the accused persons who refuted the charge and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in order to prove its case, produced 12 witnesses in all.

5. Dr. Ashiq Hussain, P.W.12 on 13-6-1991 conducted post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries:-- (1) Lacerated fire-arm wound 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. x deep on left side of forehead (entry wound). (2) Lacerated fire-arm wound 2 c. in. x 2 c. in. x deep going on front side of head with everted edges (wound exit). (3) Lacerated fire-arm wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. x deep going on front of right chest (entry wound). (4) Lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 3 c.m. x superficial on the front of right chest. (5) Lacerated wound 2-1/2 c. m. x 1-1/2 c. in. x deep going on back of right chest everted edges. (6) Lacerated wound glancing fire-arm 16 c.m. x 5 c.m. on back of left forearm. (7) Lacerated wound 10 c.m. x 4 c.m. x deep going on front of left forearm inverted edges. (8) Lacerated wound 4 c.m. x 1-1/2 c.m. x deep going on below left elbow everted edges. In his opinion death occurred due to damage of brain by injuries 1 and 2, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

6. Muhammad Sharif, Patwari (P.W.1), deposed that he prepared site plans on the pointation of P.Ws. on 15-6-1991 and signed the same, Muhammad Arshad, Constable (P.W.2) appeared and deposed that he was handed over a sealed parcel containing blood-stained earth which he delivered intact to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore, Zulfiqar Ali, A.S.-I. (P.W.3) deposed that he was handed over a sealed parcel by Riaz Ali, S.-I., which he further delivered to Muhammad Arshad, Constable for its onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore for analysis. Mst. Manzoor Begum (P.W.4), appeared and deposed regarding the confession made by Nasrullah and Tariq Saleem accused at her house. She had also identified the photographs of dead body and her last-worn clothes, Muhammad Hussain (P.W.5) deposed and gave the background of the murder of his daughter. He also deposed about the confession 'made by Nasrullah and Tariq Saleem accused at his house. He also alleged motive against the accused persons. He had also identified the photographs of deceased and her last-worn clothes, Mst. Ameena (P.W.6) deposed about the confession which the accused persons namely Tariq and Nasar had made before her, Mushtaq Masih (P.W.7) appeared and deposed that he snapped the photographs of dead body and handed over three copies of the same to the police, Muhammad Ashiq (P.W.8) deposed that he had seen a dead body on the canal bank and reported the matter to the police, where his statement Exh. P.D. was recorded and he thumb-marked the same as being correct, Muhammad Mansha (P. W.9) was declared hostile. However, he deposed that 2-1/2 years ago a murder took place, but he does not remember that police had taken into possession the blood-stained earth in his presence. Riaz Ali, S.-I. (P.W.10) had conducted investigation of the case He gave the details of his investigation, Arif Baig (P.W.11) appeared and deposed that he escorted the dead body of an unknown woman to Civil Hospital, Gujranwala. He was handed over last-worn clothes of the deceased, which he further delivered to the Investigating Officer, who took the same into possession and prepared a recovery memo. Exh.P.A. He has also signed the recovery memo., and Dr. Ashiq Hussain, appeared as P.W.12 and he gave the details of his post-mortem which have correctly been reproduced in para. 5 above.

7. On the conclusion of the trial the statements of the accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. were recorded, who refuted the allegations and professed innocence.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends with great vehemence that though it is an unseen murder, yet the last-worn clothes of the deceased and ear rings were identified by parents of the deceased. The extra-judicial confession was made by the accused persons before the parents of the deceased admitting that they had picked her up and she was taken away to their house and was locked in a room and on the next day she Was again brought on motor-cycle at the canal bank and three shots were fired on her. They also enteated before the parents of the deceased to forgive them. All circumstantial evidence available on the record connects the accused persons with the crime but the learned trial Court has erred to acquit the accused persons while giving them benefit of doubt. It was foolproof case; a cold-blooded murder of young girl, who was a teachress in a school and had gone to collect her salary but could not come back to her house. Vehemently argues that previously she had been staying in the house of Chairman of the area, who was also elder brother of the accused and she had made a complaint to her parents about the objectionable conduct of the accused persons. Her parent had got her transferred from that school and to wreck this vengeance she was murdered by the accused persons. 8-A. I have heard the learned counsel at full length and perused the record available in the Court with his assistance.

9. Admittedly this was an unseen murder and eye-witnesses in the case could not be produced. No evidence on the point of motive has also been produced. The body of the deceased was also not seen by the P. Ws. The witnesses only identified the photographs and last-worn clothes to be of Shagufta deceased.

10. It is established principle of law that the acquittal order shall not be interfered with even if a different view was possible to be taken on the basis of the evidence on the record. The reliance can safely be placed on Ghulam Sikandar and another v. Mamaraz Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 11.

11. Before proceeding further, it is worth noting that no appeal on behalf of the State against acquittal order has been preferred. The petition in hand has been filed by a private person challenging the acquittal of the accused. In such like revision petition, field and scope is very narrow. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that unless it can be shown that the judgment of the lower Court is perverse and that it is completely illegal, and no other conclusion can be drawn except the guilt of the accused or there has been misreading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice, the acquittal order cannot be interfered with. The evidence has not been brought on the file to connect the accused persons with the crime. In the circumstances of the case, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that the circumstantial evidence on the record is such whereby the accused can be held responsible for the murder of Mst. Shagufta. The story, as narrated, in the F.I.R., seems not to be plausible against the accused persons in the absence of the reliable evidence and that too without corroboration by the strong independent evidence from other source. In these circumstances, the conviction could have not been recorded against the accused persons. The learned trial Court has rightly after applying its judicious mind, acquitted the accused persons, keeping in view the manner in which the occurrence of causing the murder of Mst. Shagufta has been narrated by the prosecution. The main thrust has been shown on the extra-judicial confession made by the respondents before the parents of the deceased. It does not seem in consonance with the natural conduct of the human being as to under what circumstances they were forced to make a confession before the parents of the deceased who had never made any statement anywhere during the investigation to the effect that their daughter has been killed by the respondents.

12. Even otherwise, the interference in the revisional jurisdiction in a criminal case against the acquittal order can only be made if the reasons given by the trial Court were perverse or wholly illegal and unsustainable or artificial. The reasons stated above for the acquittal of respondents Nos. l and 2 were justified and the impugned judgment being unimpeachable does not call for any interference.

13. In view of what has been discussed above, it is a sad murder of young lady who was a teachress in a school but the prosecution could not prove through reliable evidence any guilt of the accused persons. In this view of the matter, revision petition is dismissed. N.H.Q./M-295/L Revision petition dismissed.