2006 P Cr (PLP)

MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJAM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.

Appellants were tried by Additional Sessions Judge Kamalia for the murder of one Sajida Parveen in case F.I.R. No.311 dated 9-7-2001 for the offence under section 302/34, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Pir Mahal, who vide judgment, dated 30-5-2002 convicted appellants under section 302(b)/34, P.P.C. and sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life and to pay Rs. 1,00,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellants have filed the instant criminal appeal through jail.

2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that Ghulam Haider complainant of this case reported the matter to the police that his daughter Mst. Sajida Parveen was married woman and was pregnant. Twenty/twenty-five days before the day of reporting she had come from her in-laws to the house of the complainant. On 8-7-2000 at about 9 a.m., she was present in her house, in the absence of the complainant Safia Bibi accused aged about 7/8 years had come to the house of the complainant and had called daughter of the complainant Mst. Sajida Parveen. Mst. Sajida Parveen did not turn up till evening hours and when the complainant returned to his house he along with other persons of the locality continued search of his daughter up till morning time. At the morning hours Ghulam Rasool son of Fazil Muhammad and Abdul Sattar son of Muhammad Sharif met the complainant and told him that his daughter was lastly seen by them while she was entering in the house of Sher Muhammad alias Mali son of Muttali. They also disclosed that since boundary wall of the house was shorter in height, they had also seen Farooq and Ghulam Murtaza alias Saleem appellant dragging Sajida Parveen inside the house when she was asking for forgiveness. The complainant on this information straightaway went to the house of Sher Muhammad along with Ghulam Rasool and Abdul Sattar P.Ws. and told him the whole story. House of Sher Muhammad was often kept locked, complainant and P.Ws. asked Sher Muhammad for the search of the house. Sher Muhammad did not allow them and the complainant reported the matter to the police. The lock of the house was opened in the presence of the police and swollen dead body of Sajida Parveen was found lying on the ground. On examination it was observed that Mst. Sajida was strangulated and tortured. The motive of this occurrence narrated by the complainant was that both the appellants used to tease his daughter whenever she was found by the appellants in loneliness. Daughter of the complainant had admonished both the appellants and for taking revenge of their disgrace both the appellants had committed Qatl-i-Amd of daughter of the complainant.

3. The matter was investigated by Muhammad Younas S.-I. P.W.13 and after complying with the legal formalities challan was. submitted before the trial Court where prosecution produced thirteen witnesses including Ghulam Haider P.W.1 and Ghulam Rasool P.W.2 (eye-witnesses) to prove the case against the appellants.

4. Learned trial Court also examined appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. Both the appellants while denying the charges pleaded innocence. None of the appellants opted to make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. nor produced any evidence in their defence. Learned trial Court after appraisal of evidence vide judgment, dated 30-5-2002 convicted and sentenced the appellants as narrated earlier.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants while challenging the legality of impugned judgment submits that it was an unseen occurrence. Mst. Sajida was done to death by unknown persons but latter on by fabricating story appellants have been involved in this case; that during the investigation nothing was recovered from the appellants and that evidence relied upon by the prosecution seeking conviction of appellants is nothing but a pack of lies. On the other hand, counsel for the State while supporting the impugned judgment vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellants.

5. The case of the prosecution is that one day prior to the registration of this case i.e. on 8-7-2000 Ghulam Rasool and Abdul Sattar P.Ws. had seen both the appellants dragging Mst. Sajida Parveen into the house of Sher Muhammad (father of Farooq). They did not inform anybody about the same. On the next day when they came to know that Mst. Sajida Bibi is missing they informed complainant about the said occurrence. Later on with the assistance of the police door of the house of Sher Muhammad was opened and dead body of Mst. Sajida was found lying on the floor. Complainant Ghulam Haider P.W.1 lodged F.I.R. on the basis of facts brought to his notice by the said witnesses. Before the trial Court only Ghulam Rasool P.W.2 was produced as eye-witness in support of the prosecution case. It is interesting to note that Ghulam Rasool P.W.2 along with Abdul Sattar (since dead) had seen the lady being dragged by the appellants but no attempt was made by them to rescue her nor they informed the complainant or any of the co-villager. The conduct of both the witnesses was very unnatural and unbelievable. Post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Yasmin Moazzam P.W.

11. The doctor never observed wounds of dragging on the person of the deceased nor during the investigation marks of dragging were observed by the Investigating Officer at the place of occurrence. According to prosecution's case dead body of Mst. Sajida was found lying in the house of Sher Muhammad (father of Muhammad Farooq appellant) but there is no direct evidence on the record to show or establish that the house from where the dead body was recovered was possessed or owned by the father of Muhammad Farooq. Similarly as stated by the Investigating Officer place of occurrence was surrounded A by inhabited houses and the same was situated in the Chowk of the village. In such-like situation it is unbelievable that the occurrence i.e. dragging of Mst. Sajida Bibi by the appellants, would go unwitnessed or unnoticed by the other villagers. Admittedly the day of occurrence was the Nikah ceremony day of Ghulam Murtaza appellant at Faisalabad. It is difficult to believe that appellant would commit such offence on the day of his Nikah ceremony. Accumulatively the said facts are sufficient to doubt the credibility of the prosecution case and the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Accordingly this appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of the appellants is set aside and they stand acquitted from the charge. Appellants shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other criminal case. H.B.T./M-1353/L Appeal allowed.