1989 PLP 4404 (MLD)

‑‑‑S.302/34‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Deceased strangulated by accused with safa‑‑Witnesses allegedly threatened with dire consequences while trying to intervene‑‑Witnesses contradicted on material aspects‑‑Different distances of witnessing occurrence given by all witnesses‑‑Occurrence at mid night under `keekar' tree‑‑Identification of culprits even in moonlight not possible from distance given by witness‑‑Witnesses when asked assailants about their identity they ran away‑‑Post‑mortem not conducted on day following night of occurrence but on next following day‑‑Dead body not sent to mortuary on immediately following day‑‑Benefit of doubt founded on cogent reasons was thus rightly extended to accused in circumstances‑‑Acquittal order upheld in circumstances. Hasan Ahmad Kanwar for Petitioner. The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that Bagh Ali petitioner had got a case registered under section 302/34 P.P.C. against the respondents and another, with Police Station Depalpur, on 8‑5‑1987, for the murder of his brother Bashir. The learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 6‑6‑1988, gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents. In the present revision the petitioner challenges the acquittal of the respondents. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the respondents has been proved beyond doubt by the ocular account. Submits that the eye‑witnesses have given a very convincing account with regard to the occurrence and their presence at the spot, therefore, the same should not have been disbelieved.

2. I have heard learned counsel and gout through the evidence with his assistance. The learned trial Court had disbelieved the motive as set up by the prosecution which is to the effect that Manzoor respondent suspected Bashir deceased of having illicit relations with his wife Mst. Taj Bibi. The only evidence produced by the prosecution in support of the motive is of complainant himself, who in cross‑examination admitted that Abbas accused had disclosed about the illicit relations of the deceased with said Mst. Taj Bibi but prior to the incident there was no such allegation. It is strange to note that the motive finds mention in the F.I.R. which was got registered on 8‑5‑1987 whereas the respondents were arrested on 25‑5‑1987 in these circumstances, obviously the version given by the complainant with regard to the motive is false.

3. The eye‑witness account has been furnished by Bagh Ali and Muhammad Abdullah, P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively. Ali of them have stated that they witnessed the occurrence while they were coming back from the thresher of Ch. Bashir where they were working as labourers, they saw the respondents strangulating the deceased with a safa. They tried to intervene but were threatened by Abbas respondent with dire consequences. They were cross?-examined at length during which they contradicted each other about the material aspects. They are nor unanimous from which distance they witnessed the occurrence. One of them had stated that they witnessed the occurrence' from 40 Karams while the other had stated that that witnessed the occurrence from a distance of 10/11 karams yet the other witness stated that they saw the occurrence from one killa. They are unanimous that they had witnessed the occurrence which took place under a keekar tree, at mid night. If that he so then it would be impossible for a witness to identify a person from a distance of 40 karams who stood under the shadow of a tree even if there was full moon. The finding further finds corroboration from the statements of the witnesses in cross?-examination when the witness stated that on seeing the occurrence they shouted at the assailants asking them about their identity whereupon they ran away. This part of the statement proved beyond any doubt that the eye witnesses did not identify the assailants. Even otherwise also the occurrence took place between the night of 7/8‑5‑1987 yet post‑mortem examination was conducted on 9‑5‑1987. The doctor who conducted post‑mortem examination stated that he started with the post‑mortem examination on the dead body as soon as he received the same. This would clearly indicate that the dead body was not sent to the mortuary on 8‑5‑1987 as has been asserted by the prosecution.

4. I have carefully gone through the judgment impugned and find that cogent reasons have been given for extending the benefit of doubt to the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out anything from the judgment which could warrant interference by this Court.

5. Resultantly, the petition fails which is accordingly dismissed. S.A./B‑142/L?? Acquittal upheld.