1999 P Cr (PLP)

ABDUR RAUF KHAN LUGHMANI, J.‑‑‑ This appeal filed by the State under section 417, Cr.P.C. is against the judgment, dated 7‑7‑1994, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bannu, vide which Khandar Ali, accused/respondent herein was acquitted of the charge under section 302, P. P. C.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 12‑9‑1975 at 7‑15 hours Mst. Muhammad Zaka (P.W.6) made a report recorded in the daily diary at Serial No.1, wherein she charged the respondent for murdering her grandson Gohar Noor at about Digar Vella. She alleged that she alongwith the deceased and the respondent, who is her son‑in‑law, used to live jointly in one house. On the eventful day Gohar Noor had gone to irrigate his fields adjacent to Akbar Mosque. At Digar Vella, Khandar Ali came home, picked up a topak and after telling his wife Mst. Sardara to take care of herself went out. She also followed him. The moment respondent reached near Gohar Noor, he fired at him with which he was hit and fell down. Thereafter, the respondent decamped. On her hue and cry, people were attracted and took the injured to the police station. About motive, she stated that there is no previous ill‑will.

3. After completion of investigation, challan was submitted under section 512, Cr.P.C., as the respondent was absconder. He was arrested on 4‑10‑1990 and thereafter, faced trial before the learned Sessions Judge, Bannu who, as stated earlier, acquitted him of the charge.

4. We have gone through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The case of the prosecution is based on the statement of Mst. Muhammad Zaka (P.W.6), medical evidence and abscondence of the respondent. The trial Court disbelieved the solitary eye‑witness and found delay in making the report, for which no explanation is available on the record. No motive has been advanced either in the initial report or at the trial. In point of fact, according to the admission of P.W. Mst. Muhammad Zaka, the respondent and the deceased had never exchanged hot words prior to the occurrence and the accused had promised to give the hand of his daughter to the son of the deceased. There was engagement as well. Again, no explanation is available as to why she followed the respondent. The conduct of Mst. Muhammad Zaka following the respondent is not probable. The circumstances do eliminate her presence on the spot. The deceased, according to her version, carried a spade for purposes of irrigation, but no spade was found. She stated that the deceased was standing at the time he was fired at, but in the site plan, the deceased is shown in sitting position. Another intriguing circumstance is that the deceased received fire‑arm injuries at point No.2, but surprisingly no blood‑stained earth was found. The blood‑stained earth and some crop were taken into from point No.5, which is at some distance from point No.6 and is between the two points, there is a water channel. She claimed that many persons were attracted on her raising hue and cry, but none has been produced to show that soon after the occurrence, she charged the accused. We are, therefore, satisfied that she was not present and later on she charged the respondent on suspicion. There is no need to discuss medical or other evidence, which are in nature of corroboration and we have already disbelieved the solitary witness. The verdict of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is the result of correct analysis of the evidence and circumstances of the case.??????

5. As a result, we find no substance in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. N.H.Q./297/P ??????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.