2010 MLD 286 (PLP)

AHMED ALI SHAIKH, J.

Through this criminal acquittal appeal, the appellant has impugned the judgment, dated 25-8-2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Adam, District Sanghar in Sessions Case No.1 of 2003, whereby he acquitted the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 inter alia on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

2. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 19-9-1998 complainant Yar Muhammad filed a direct complaint against accused Riaz Rafique and Mst. Guddi, before the concerned Court which was forwarded to Sessions Court Sanghar as the offence was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The complainant stated therein that his daughter Mst. Allah Bachai was married to accused Riaz and second daughter to Yasin brother of the accused and in turn the sister of accused Riaz was married to his son Muhammad Ali. It is further stated that accused Riaz and his brother were living in Khuda Bux Colony, Tando Adam. It is further alleged that accused Riaz always used to force Mst. Allah Bachai to work in the field and on her refusal their relations were strained. Accused Riaz, his brother Rafique, sisters Mst. Guddi and Mst. Zubeda prepared a plan to kill Mst. Allah Bachai. It is further stated that about a year back at about 8/9-00 a.m. the above named accused caught hold Mst. Allah Bachai, out of them accused Riaz administered poslicide in presence of Mst. Halema the sister of Mst. Allah Bachai. Resultantly his death occurred instantaneously. Mst. Haleema remained mum due to threats issued to her by the accused.' The accused Riaz lodged such report with the police by showing the death of Mst. Allah Bachai as suicide and got the case disposed of as suicide case. Ultimately Mst. Haleema appraised such facts to her father and brother Muhammad Ali.

3. During the pendency of the case accused Riaz had died as such proceedings against him were abated.

4. To substantiate its case complainant Yar Muhammad examined himself, Mst. Haleema, Mohammad Ali and Dr. Khursheed.

5. The accused were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. In their respective statements they pleaded innocence and their false implication in the case. In their defence they examined SIP Irfan, who conducted initial inquiry in respect of the above said incident, on the report of accused Riaz.

6. Perusal of the deposition of witness Mst. Haleema who was the real sister of the deceased Mst. Allah Bachai reveals that her conduct at the time of occurrence was unnatural and is not confidence-inspiring. Being the real sister of the deceased it is unconceivable that on watching the incident she did not raise cry. The deposition Dr. Khursheed who conducted autopsy of dead body of deceased Mst. Allah Bachai reveals that there was on mark of any violence seen on the person of the deceased Mst. Allah Bachai either externally or internally. In the face of such material, the evidence of Mst. Haleema before the Court implicating the respondent could not be relied upon. Moreover, absence of mark of violence on the person of the deceased belies the ocular evidence of Mst. Haleema.??

7. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that conclusion arrived by the learned trial Court was reasonable and based on cogent reasons. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, which could connect the respondents with the alleged offence. Moreover the doctrine of double presumption of innocence is also attached to the impugned judgment, we therefore found no merit in the appeal. These are the reasons of our short order, dated 5-11-2009, passed in the aforesaid appeal. H.B.T./Y-12/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.