1976 P Cr (PLP)

(8) Incised wound 3" x x skin deep on the left and front side of neck. (9) Incised wound 1" x x bone deep In the right and front of neck lower pact. (10) Incised wound 2' x 2' x muscle deep on the top of the right shoulder. (11) Incised wound 1" x " x chest cavity I' below right nipple. (12) Incised wound 2" x 1' x abdominal cavity right side flank. (13) Incised wound 1'x 'x abdominal cavity just above umblicus. (14) Incised wounds six in numbers each about 1 x 1' x " on the back of right shoulder blade‑one opening into chest cavity. (15) Four incised wounds 2" x 1" x on left shoulder blade. (16) Incised wound 2' x ' x cutting the vertebra and rib on middle part of the back midline. (17) Incised wound 2 x 1' x " on the back of left neck. (18) Incised wound 2" x x " on the top of left shoulder. (19) Incised wound x x cutting the bone of left thumb on the palm of the left hand. Right and left pleuras were cut by injuries Nos. 11 and

7. There were cuts at two places on the right lung by injury No.

11. Upper part of the left lung was cut. Pericardium and heart were cut. Peritonium had a cut. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the injuries to the vital organs.

4. The appellant denied guilt and ascribed the case to enmity with the P.Ws. He explained that the deceased was engaged to Nemat son of P. W. Muhammad Sharif's brother and since she was a woman of loose character, Nemat was suspected of having committed her murder in con nivance with her relation. He added that Shukkar Din had strained relations with his family, because Shukkar Din's mother was abducted by his grand father. He also alleged enmity with Ali Muhammad and Sana ullah P. Ws. on account of civil litigation between them and the sister of his father. The appellant led no evidence in defence.

5. Prosecution has relied on the evidence of three eye‑witnesses, namely Muhammad Sharif P. W. 8, a maternal uncle of the deceased. Ali Muhammad P. W. 9, a resident of village Kotli Kuppah and Shukkar Din P. W. 9, father of the deceased. Besides the evidence of the eye‑witnesses prosecution has also relied\on the recovery of the weapon of offence, i.e., blood‑stained churri P. 5 and the blood‑stained clothes of the appellant. P. W. 5 Hassan Muhammad, P. W. 6 Muhammad Tufail A. S. I., and the Investigating Officer were produced to prove the recovery of the chum. The recovery of the clothes of the appellant was proved by P. W. 7 Sana ullah and P. W. 8 Muhammad Sharif (the eye‑witnesses), besides the investigating Officer.

6. The first question for determination would be whether the three eye‑witnesses can be relied upon. Admittedly, a sister of Muhammad Sharif P. W. was married to Shukkar Din P. W. and Shukkar Din's sister was married to Shafi, a brother of Muhammad Sharif P. W. The place of occurrence was four miles from the house of Muhammad Sharif P. W. This witness had come to the village of Shukkar Din a day before the occurrence. According to him, at the time of occurrence, he was going with Ali Muhammad P. W. 9 towards the village to have his meals at the house of his sister and as they reached near Chah Beriwala, they saw Shukkar Din coming from the side of the village followed by Mst. Sughran, and then they saw the accused attacking the deceased with a churri. P. W. 9 Ali Muhammad who owned land‑ at a distance of one square from Chah Khadanwala, was cutting fodder from his land, when P. W. Muhammad Sharif came there at about noon time and asked him to accompany him to the village to which he agreed and on their way they saw the occurrence. Shukkar Din claimed to be with the deceased when she was attacked by the appellant. Although this witness mentioned the names of Muhammad Sharif and Ali Muhammad in the F. I. R., but at the trial he said that when the appellant was attacking his daughter he stood aside out of fear and "no one witnessed this incident". He then said that Muhammad Sharif and Ali Muhammad were at a distance of 10 to 20 karams when the accused ran away. He added that, "we were visible to these P. Ws. from 20 karams". Earlier he had told the Committing Magistrate that "Ali Muhammad and Sharif reached there after about an hour". This witness however, denied having said so before the Committing Magistrate. While discussing this aspect of Shukkar Din's statement, the trial Court concluded that "Shukkar Din was an illiterate person he was therefore, not expected to give the exact time as to when the other witnesses reached the post". I cannot agree with this finding. It is noteworthy that before introducing Sharif and Ali Muhammad Shukkar Din had also said "no one witnessed the occurrence". In my opinion, by making contradictory statements at different stages. Shukkar Din has created a doubt about the presence of Muhammad Sharif and Ali Muhammad. It may also be mentioned at this stage that at the time of occurrence, civil litigation about a piece of land was pending 'between the aunt (Phuphi) of the appellant on one side and Ali Muhammad and Sanaullah P. Ws. on the other side. Muhammad Sharif is closely related to the deceased and belonged to another village. I do not consider it safe to rely on their statements.

7. Shukkar Din's presence at the place of occurrence is also doubtful. This witness admitted under cross‑examination that he was at a distance of 10 karams from his daughter when she screamed and he then came to know about the assailant who had stabbed her in the abdomen. But before the Committing Magistrate, the witness had said that he heard a lalkara of the accused in the first instance when the accused was at a distance of two acres from him. He had also stated there that when he heard the lalkara of the accused, he did not see any other persons there. Not only that he denied having mentioned about the lalkara of the accused, he took a different position at the trial. As according to the story put up at the trial, the accused merged from the field and straight away attacked the deceased. No lalkara was attributed to him. It appears that lalkara of the accused has been deliberately omitted realizing that if three men (i.e. the witnesses) were close by a lalkara from a distance would have been sufficient notice for them to intervene in time. There is yet another circumstance which shows that the assailant attacked the deceased at a time when he was not noticed by anyone else. There are not less than 18 injuries on the deceased. Surely, if the three eye‑witnesses had been around the assailant would have been in a hurry to commit the crime and escape, and in that case it could not have been possible for him to inflict a large number of injuries. It may also be mentioned at this stage that Shukkar Din admitted that his mother married his uncle, after the death of his father later she was abducted by the grandfather of the appellant, who married her. There circumstances indicate that the relations between the two families i e., of the appellants and Shukkar Din would not be happy.

8. Delay in reporting the matter to the police is another circumstance which creates a doubt about the presence of the eye‑witnesses at the spot. Occurrence is said to have taken place at noon time. According to Muhammad Sharif it took place between 12 noon and 1 p.m. The report was made at 4 p.m. at a distance of two miles from the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer explained the delay by saying that the informant had told him that because he kept weeping over the dead body, therefore, he became a bit late. But this explanation was neither given by Shukkar Din nor entered by the Investigating Officer in the F. I. R. According to the prosecution, the deceased was carrying the meals of her brother and Muhammad Sharif P: W. But according to Muhammad Sharif, he was going to the house of his sister to have his meals there The story that the deceased carried the meals with her becomes further doubtful because in the inquest report, there is no mention if any article having been found near the dead body.

9. The circumstances under which the arrest of the appellant has been shown and the churri P. 5 recovered also appear to be doubtful. According to the Investigating Officer, on his way to the place of occurrence, the appellant stopped him and volunteered his arrest near the Cheema Hospital and told him that his clothes were blood‑stained and he could lead him to the place where he had hidden the blood‑stained churri. Thereafter he took him to the canal service reed and from within the reeds got the churri recovered. It is difficult to believe that an accused person who concealed the weapon of offence would court arrest the next moment. Moreover, if the appellant wanted to conceal the churri, he could have washed it in the canal or thrown the churri in it. Hiding of the churri in the reeds appears to be a made up story. P. W. 5 Hassan Muhammad who attested the recovery memo of churri Admittedly has appeared as recovery witness in 7 or 8 other cases. There is no doubt about his being a stock witness. He is the only member of the public who has attested the recovery of the churri. P. W. 7 Muhammad Tufail A. S. I. did not state before the Committing Magistrate that the accused voluntered his arrest. According to him, the accused was arrested from a distance of 200 yards away from the Cheema Hospital and about 100 yards away from the canal bank called "Bhakheke Pul", but no one was joined from the locality to witness the recovery. As to the recovery of blood‑stained clothes of the appellant, it will suffice to say that P. W. 7 Sanaullah one of the witnesses who attested the recovery is a party to the pending litigation between him and the aunt of the appellant P. W. Muhammad Sharif is the other witness of recovery. He is closely related to the deceased and the eye‑witnesses account given by him has been con sidered by me to be doubtful. Moreover, it is difficult to accept that an accused who chose to conceal the weapon of offence would be wearing blood‑stained clothes and would volunteer his arrest there and then.

10. In view of the foregoing reasons, I consider the prosecution case doubtful. Giving the appellant the benefit of doubt, I acquit him. He shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed.