1985 PLP 1229 (MLD)

In this sequence, the next witness is Ahmad Hassan. He is son-in-law of Abdullah father of the deceased. He said that he was present in the house of Abdullah when the appellant came and asked Mehboob to accompany him to the river for fishing. Mehboob was then wearing Chappal P 3/1-2 and Chadar P.2. Mehboob asked his sister to give him an underwear P.1 which he put on and left in the company of Manzoor. Thereafter, Mehboob never came back. The next item is the recovery of hatchet P.4 which according to the prosecution was found to be stained with human blood. The appellant was arrested on 15-9-1980. On 25-9-1980, he got recovered hatchet P.4 from his house. The other item is the last worn clothes of the deceased and then the evidence of extra-judicial confession, referred to above. On 28-8-1980, Dr. Muhammad Afzal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Jauharabad, conducted the post-mortem examination and found the following injuries on the dead body:- (1) Contused wound 5 c. m. x 3 c. m. on the forehead middle. (2) Right upper central incisor and lower fore incisors were not in the socket. (3) Incised wound 10 c.m. x 3 c.m. x bone deep on the neck front, side. (4) A bruise 5 c. m. x 4 c. m. on the back side of right hand. (5) A bruise 8 c.m. x 6 c.m. on the back side of right elbow joint. Injury No. 3 was caused by a sharp-edged weapon and the rest with blunt. Injury No. 2 was grievous whereas 1, 4 and 5 were simple. The doctor could not define the nature of the third injury because the underlined tissues were missing nor could he ascertained the cause of death. The dead body was not identifiable. It was in an advanced stage of decomposition. Almost all the organs of the body were absent. It was just a skeleton. On 1-10-1980, the District Magistrate, Sargodha ordered a Medical Board to find out the cause of death. The Deputy Director Health Services. Sargodha Division constituted a Board consisting of Dr. Akhtar Aleem Hashmi, M.S. D.H.Q. Hospital Sargodha; Dr. Muhammad Aslam and Dr. Muhammad Altaf Hussain of the same hospital. Dr. Hashmi was the Chairman of the Board. On 16-10-1980, the Medical Board assembled at Village Hamoka. Abdullah identified the grave of Mehboob. The body was exhumed. It was in a wooden box. The body was almost completely decomposed; no soft tissue was left nor was there any body injury. The Medical Board after perusal of the post-mortem report of Dr. Afzal opined that the cause of death must have been shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 3, referred to above. Learned counsel for the appellant first dealt with the evidence of recovery. He submitted that it took place about one month after the alleged incident. It was impossible for the blood to remain in tact. Learned counsel further submitted that according to the prosecution the weapon used was the hatchet. Therefore, whoever would be the assailant he would after the commission of the crime like to destroy the evidence and for that purpose the best course open to him was to throw the same in the river. In any case, the killer would not like to bring the weapon to his house and to keep it in such a way that even the blood would remain intact. With regard to rest of the evidence, learned counsel submitted that there was no special mark on the articles which the prosecution alleged belonged to the deceased. Similarly, the last seen evidence was not sufficient in law to support the conviction. So far as the extra-judicial confession was concerned, learned counsel submitted, that was made before the father of the deceased although according to Abdullah there were two other persons present when the appellant confessed. I have also heard learned counsel appearing for the State who supported the impugned judgment. After going through the relevant evidence, I am of the view, that the conviction in this case cannot be upheld. The evidence of recovery was very unreliable. I am not prepared to accept the prosecution story that the appellant after committing the crime brought the weapon to his house and kept it there so safely that even the blood remained on it. The evidence of extra-judicial confession and the recovery of articles also does not inspire confidence. This leaves me with the testimony of Abdullah and Ahmad Hassan. Even if this evidence is accepted, it would not advance the prosecution case any further than to show that the deceased left with the appellant. None of them deposed that the appellant had any weapon. This evidence might have been of some help to the prosecution if the remaining evidence was consistent. The prosecution has not been able to connect the chain of events from which it could be safely inferred that it was the appellant and nobody else who committed the murder. The case is not free from doubt: This appeal is accordingly accepted. The conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted. He shall be set free, forthwith, if not required in any other case. S.A. Appeal accepted.