2001 PLP 271 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 3rd November, 2000. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.66‑J of 2000 filed by the appellant through Jail against the judgment, dated 8‑4‑2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalwal, District Sargodha, whereby he convicted the appellants under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment as Ta'zir. He was further directed to pay Rs.30,000 as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. or in default to undergo six months R.I. The appellant was further directed to pay Rs.20,000 as fine or in default to undergo three years R.I.

2. The occurrence in this case took place on 6‑2‑1999 in the area o1 Mauza Moazzam Abad within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kot Moman at a distance of 14 k.m. towards west from the Police Station.

3. The facts in brief, as narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R., are that Chowkidar Naja of village Moazzam Abad was informed by one Fazal Hussain that a dead body was present on the bank of Rajbah so he went there and found the dead body lying there. There was fire‑arm injury on the dead body. He lodged the F.I.R., Exh.P.F,

4. After completing necessary formalities Salabat Khan S.I., went to the spot. He took into possession blood‑stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.A., prepared injury statement Exh.P.E./1 and that of inquest report Exh.P.E. One empty cartridge was also recovered from the spot which was taken into possession by the S. I. vide memo. Exh.P.H.

5. Prosecution in order to prove its case has produced as many as 13 witnesses including, Doctor, I.O. and other P.Ws. Muhammad Nazir, Najabat, Muhammad Ali and Haji Manak P.Ws. were given up by the prosecution as being unnecessary. Repoit of Serologist, Exh.P.Q. and report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.R. were also produced by the prosecution. Thereafter, statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded not guilty.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was an unwitnessed occurrence, nobody was named in the F.I.R., no motive has been given, even by the father of the deceased. She further submits that the recoveries of gun, ring, P.7 and Rs.2,000 have been planted on the appellant. That no reliance can be placed on the testimony of Muhammad Khan P.W.9 about extra judicial confession, that no reliance can be placed on the statement of last seen and that of extra judicial confession. She submits that deceased was a person of bad character and according to the cross‑examination of P.W.1 namely Sajjad Ahmad H.C. he was involved in different criminal cases.

7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, that ‑the evidence in this case is of shaky nature..

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case dead body of the deceased was found by the complainant who informed the police. Nobody was named in the F.I.R., no motive has been given by the complainant himself. Recoveries in this case are doubtful because according to the statement of P.W.12, Munir Ahmad, the recovery memo. was prepared on the day when the statement of said Munir Ahmad was recorded by the trial Court. The signature of Munir Ahmad and the other witnesses Haji Manak (given up P.W.) were also obtained on the said day, so no reliance can be placed on these recoveries. It does not appeal to reason that when a person commits a murder,. gets the golden ring from the body of the deceased and takes Rs.2,000 from pocket of the deceased, why will he keep the same for one and a half month with him. This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Every chain of circumstantial evidence should be linked with each other. In the present case those are missing. Even it has come on record during the cross‑examination of P. W.1 that deceased was not a man of good character. He was involved in many cases. To convict a person on a capital charge evidence should be of very high quality and good standard which is not present in this case. Even learned state counsel has not supported the prosecution case and he is right in doing so. After going through the evidence available on the record and hearing the submissions made by both the parties, I am not satisfied with the prosecution case against the appellant. In this view of the matter, I accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court. He shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑389/L Appeal allowed.