1991 PLP 2425 (MLD)

They have appealed.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that Muhammad Sarwar P.W.10 reported to the police that on coming back to his house after attending to his duty he found his house locked from outside and his wife Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi deceased missing. He searched for her and found her dead body hanging with a rafter in a nearby Dhari. He raised hue and cry attracting people. Leaving them near the dead body he himself left for the police station where he reported the matter by making report Exh.PG. Ghulam Muhammad, ASI prepared injury statement Exh.PB and inquest report Exh.PC of the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. The appellants were arrested on 4-7-1984.

4. Dr. Ghulam Dastgir P.W.1 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body and found the following injuries on her body-- (1) A contusion 6" x 1" horizontal in direction on the lower abdomon 2" below the umbilicus. (2) A contusion 6.5" x 1" on the lower abdomen 1.5" below injury No.1, slightly oblique in direction. (3) Multiple minute contusions on the front of chest. 'The injuries were ante-mortem and were simple in nature. The cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.

5. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove its case. Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.5 cousin of Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi deceased-stated that she had committed suicide. He was declared hostile. Nizam Din father of Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi deceased stated that none of the accused had made any confession before him of having killed the deceased. Muhammad Saleem P.W.7 stated that the appellant had appeared before him and confessed to have murdered the deceased. Abdul Aziz P.W.8 claimed to have seen the main occurrence. Sardar Khan P.W.9 stated that they had seen the appellant carrying the dead body of Mukhtaran Bibi deceased to the Dhari in question. Muhammad Sarwar P.W.10, husband of the deceased had reported the matter to the police station. Ghulam Muhammad A.S.I. P.W.11 and Ali Khan S.I. P.W.12 had investigated the case.

6. The appellants denied the prosecution allegations and denied having confessed their guilt before Muhammad Saleem P.W.

7. The learned trial Court disbelieved the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the charge of murder but convicted the appellants under section 201, P.P.C, for screening the offenders from punishment. He had accepted the evidence of Abdul Aziz P.W.8 and Sardar Khan P.W.9. 7-A. It is contended that after disbelieving Abdul Aziz P.W.8 and Sardar Khan P.W.9 on the charge of murder the trial Court fell in error in basing conviction of the appellants on their statements. It is further stated that there was absolutely no evidence on record warranting conviction of the appellants and that the learned trial Court had drawn inferences against the appellants from their statements made at the trial. The law requires that the statement of the accused may be accepted or rejected in its entirety and it is not permissible that only one part of it may be picked up and made basis of their conviction.

8. Abdul Aziz P.W.8 and Sardar Khan P.W.9 were examined by the police on the 9th day of the occurrence. They could not advance any satisfactory explanation for keeping silent for such a long period. If they had actually seen the appellants putting the chain around the neck of the deceased and carrying away her dead body there was no reason for their not coming forward and making statements to that effect before the police. Sardar Khan P.W.9 had appeared before the police on the arrival of the police in the village but surprisingly he did not disclose the occurrence to him. Besides the above, there is no other evidence to connect the appellants with the crime. There is no material to show that the Dhari from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered belonged to them. In the circumstances narrated above, there was no material against the appellants justifying their conviction. Accordingly, I accept their appeal, set aside their conviction and sentence and acquit them of the charge. They are discharged from their bail bonds. SA./A-1368/L Appeal accepted.