1987 PLP 3131 (MLD)

5. No motive for this offence has been disclosed in the F. I. R.

6. As per prosecution version, as disclosed in the statement Ex. PA., the deceased Muhammad Ashraf alias Babu used to supply breakfast in a Rehri in front of Jhang Bazar. On the fateful day at about 9.00 a.m. Ghulam Nabi P.W., the brother of the deceased, was also present with him. After selling the articles the deceased went to his residence for some work. His residence was located on the Chaubara on the shop of Ali Halvai. He did not return for some time. A little later, Muhammad Bashir son of Munna (P.W.14) informed Ghulam Nabi P.W. that his brother was lying in a pool of blood in his Chaubara. Ghulam Nabi P.W. accompanied by Muhammad Bashir aforesaid and Akram son of Siraj Din went to the Chaubara and found his brother lying in injured condition on the floor. He was profusely bleeding. Ghulam Nabi P.W. removed his brother to Civil Hospital, Faisalabad, where he succumbed to the injuries while he was still being administered medical aid. Ghulam Nabi disclosed in his statement Ex. P.A. that his brother Muhammad Ashraf wa. married to one Surraya to whom he divorced on account of her easy virtues. His relatives, therefore, were annoyed with the deceased. Ghulam Nabi suspected them to be responsible for this murder.

7. The appellant was arrested in this case on 23-9-1971 by Muhammad Yousuf A.S.I. P. W .16. At the time of his arrest he was found carrying unlicensed revolver P.6 with two live bullets P.7/1-2. The pistol and live bullets were secured vide memo Ex. PH on 23-9-1971 in the presence of Sardar Muhammad P.W.8 and. Zafar Ahmad P.W.9. The recovery memo has been attested by Sardar Muhammad and Zafar Ahmad aforesaid as also by Muhammad Yousuf A.S.I. P.W.16. Blood stained Shalwar P.8 was also got removed from the person of Muhammad Aslam appellant at the time of his arrest. This Shalwar was also taken into possession through the aforesaid memo Ex. PH in the presence of Sardar Muhammad and Zafar Ahmad abovementioned. It is noteworthy that an empty P.4 was recovered from the place of occurrence lying on the floor of the Chaubara on 17-9-1971. This empty was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PD, which has been attested -by Sardar Muhammad P.W.8 and Muhammad Sharif (not produced). The alleged crime empty recovered from the spot and the pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant at the time of his arrest were, however, not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and, therefore, the recovery of these two items is not of much consequence, as there is nothing, on the records to connect the pistol recovered from the appellant with the crime.

8. The autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Ashraf deceased was performed by Dr. Imtiaz Ahmad Gill on 16-9-1971, who was then posted as Medical Officer, District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad. He noticed the following injuries on the body of the deceased:- (1) A punctured wound, 1/3" x 1/3", on the right side of chin. (2) A punctured wound, 1/3" x 1/3", on the back side of neck. Injury No. 1 communicated with injury No. 2 and the two injuries were six inches apart. At the time of post-mortem examination the doctor did not record his opinion about the nature of weapon with which these injuries were caused. He, however, reported that the injuries were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, as they were responsible for shock and haemorrhage. Ex. P.O. is the carbon copy of the post-mortem report while Ex. PO/1 is the pictorial presentation of the injuries. Subsequently, on 8-10-1971, on police query the doctor opined vide Ex. PL/1 that injuries Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused by pistol shot. In his cross-examination he admitted that he did not re-examine the body on 8-10-1971 while recording his opinion Ex. PL/1 and that he did not see any particle of gun powder at the site of injuries at the time of post-mortem examination. The police officer, who prepared the injury statement and the inquest report, recorded in these documents as if the injuries were caused by some sharp-edged weapon.

9. P.W.12 Muhammad Saleem and P.W.15 Abdul Rashid, who do not figure in the F.I.R. appeared at the trial as eye-witnesses to furnish the ocular account. At the trial these witnesses disclosed that a bullet in the pistol, which was bought for the deceased by the appellant, was stuck up. The appellant tried to remove the bullet, but the shot was fired accidentally which hit the deceased. The injury thus caused was responsible for his death.

10. The appellant, however, pleaded not guilty and alleged that he has been falsely involved in the case by the police officer: No evidence has, however, been led in his defence by the appellant. 10-A. While supporting the judgment under appeal, the learned State counsel urged that Muhammad, Saleem and Abdul Rashid who were not related to the deceased in any manner and were disinterested and independent witnesses have fully supported the prosecution version to the effect that the appellant was responsible for causing the death of Muhammad Ashraf deceased. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the name of the appellant has not been mentioned in the F.I.R.; the injuries originally were alleged to have been caused by sharp-edged weapon and then as a result of query it was opined that they were caused by a pistol; the pistol allegedly recovered from the appellant and the crime empty said to have been found from the place of occurrence were not sent for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory; the eye-witnesses did not figure in the F.I.R. they were originally interrogated as accused and subsequently made eye-witnesses, therefore, their testimonies could not be relied upon and were not legally admissible and that it did not sound the reasons that the appellant would be wearing blood-stained Shalwar eight days after the occurrence and would also be carrying the weapon of offence on that day.

11. The submissions made on behalf of the appellant have been fully considered and analysed. Evidently no motive against the appellant has been alleged for causing the death of the deceased in the F.I.R. nor he has been mentioned as an accused in the said F.I.R. Both the eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Saleem and Abdul Rashid admitted that they were also arrested in this case and were interrogated for the murder of the deceased. The version which they disclosed also shows that this was a case of accidental death and not that of murder of culpable homicide. The alleged recovery of pistol P.6 and live bullets P.7/1-2 from the appellant at the time of arrest on 23-9-1971, has also not been legally proved. The two witnesses, viz. Sardar Muhammad P. W.8 and Zafar Ahmad P. W.9, who have been produced to support this recovery do not belong to the locality from where the recovery is alleged to have been made. Both of them admitted that previously they also appeared as police witnesses in many cases. They claimed that they accompanied the investigating officer for the purpose of recovery from the police post. Their status is admittedly that of stock witnesses of the police. Their statement cannot be relied upon. Moreover, as already observed, the pistol and the empty, allegedly recovered from the spot, were not sent for comparison to the Forensic Science Laboratory.

12. In the light of the above discussion it is concluded that guilt has not been brought home to the appellant at all. In this view of the matter, his appeals are allowed, his convictions and sentences are set aside and he is acquitted. The appellant shall be set at liberty-forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. S.A./M-409/L Acquitted.