P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

KHAMISANI, J.‑The appellant Mst. Hajul has been convicted under sections 301/302 and 307, Pakistan Penal Code, and sentenced to transportation for life and rigorous imprisonment for five years. The sentences passed on her have been directed to run concurrently. One Ghulam Hussain had also been tried along with her but he has been acquitted. The appellant has filed this appeal.

2. The facts of the prosecution case briefly are that Punhoon had married Mst Hajul a few months before this incident and had given his sister in exchange. The case of the prosecution is that Mst. Hajul, before she got married to Punhoon, had a liaison with Ghulam Hussain, the acquitted accused. Her connections with Punhoon after her marriage were not quite cordial. Even Punhoon suspected her fidelity and was not pleased with her. On the day of the Incident, which in this case was 10th April 1960, while Punhoon and Sadik were harvesting their cultivation, Mst. Hajul, wife of Punhoon and Mst. Muradan, wife of Sadik, took meals for their respective husbands on the field. Sadik is said to have taken his meals and a slice from the bread brought for Punhoon. Both Sadik and Punhoon, after taking their meals, felt giddy and started vomiting. They came to their house. Sadik died at about sunset time. Allahwarayo then went to the Police Station at Badah which was at a distance of seven miles and lodged his first information report, Exh. 15, on the night between 10th and 11th April 1960 at about midnight.

3. The police came to the scene of offence and prepared the mashirnama of vardat and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Mst. Hajul and Ghulam Hussain were produced for their confessions before the Mukhtiarkar and First Class Magis trate, Mr. Muhammad Bachal P. W.

1. Their confessions were recorded on 11th April 1960. The confession of Mst. Hajul has been brought on record as Exh. 6, After the usual investigation was completed, the appellant along with Ghulam Hussain was challaned.

4. The appellant, when questioned, denied the allegations made against her. She denied even having carried meals for her husband to the field. She alleged that she had made the confes sion under pressure from the Police. She also stated that she was being implicated because the witnesses who had been examined and who were related to Mst. Muradan were implicating her with a view to save Mst. Muradan although Mst. Muradan was responsible for administering poison to her husband Sadik. No witnesses in defence have been examined.

5. The question whether Sadik and Punhoon were poisoned and whether Sadik died on account of it is not disputed. The evidence of Dr. Moidul Haq. P. W. 14, and the evidence of the witnesses conclusively establishes that the death of Sadik was due to poison. The learned counsel for the appellant also Joes not dispute the issue.

6. The sole question that needs to be determined in this appeal is whether Mst. Hajul intended to poison her husband Punhoon and did in fact poison him. It is also to be decided whether Sadik took meals of Punhoon which contained poison and he died on account of it. The evidence on which the prosecution have founded their case consists of the following circumstances :‑ (1) Judicial confession, Exh. 6, given by Mst. Hajul and recorded by Mukhtiarkar, Mr. Muhammad Bachal on 11th April 1960. (2) Extra‑judicial confession made by Mst. Hajul to her husband Punhoon. (3) The meals were brought by Mst. Hajul for her husband Punhoon. (4) Motive.

7. Out of these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly discarded the judicial confession said to have been made by Mst. Hajul. We see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge. There is ample evidence on record to suggest that the confession given by her was not a voluntary one. The conviction of Mst. Hajul, therefore, has been based on the alleged extra‑judicial confession made by her to her husband Punhoon supported bar the circumstances that she brought they meals for her husband which contained arsenic and the motive. So far as the extra judicial confession is concerned, the learned counsel for the State concedes that the evidence on record is not such as would prove that Mst. Hajul made an extra‑judicial confession to her husband Punhoon. The evidence relating to this extra‑judicial confession consists of the evidence of Punhoon, P. W. 4, only. Punhoon in his evidence has stated that Mst. Hajul on being asked as to what she had done admitted before him that she had poisoned him because she wanted him to die so that she might marry her paramour Ghulam Hussain. According to Punhoon he bad given this information to Allah Warayo before he bad gone to the police station for filing the first information report. The first information report does not talk of this extra‑judicial confession. The first Information report as well as the evidence of Allah Warayo clearly shows that Punhoon had told Allah Warayo that he suspected Mst. Hajul, his wife, to have admi nistered poison to him. It may be this suspicion of Punhoon which may have been reinforced subsequently and which probably came out In the version that Mst. Hajul bad admitted her guilt to him. The evidence on the record, therefore, is not sufficient for holding that Mst. Hajul made extra‑judicial confession of her guilt to Punhoon. After the evidence of extra‑judicial confession is discarded, the evidence with which the prosecution is left that Mst. Hajul had the motive for killing her husband and that she had brought the meals which are said to have contained poison which resulted in the death of Sadik. So far as the circumstance of Mst. Hajul bringing the meals for her husband is concerned, there is the evidence of Punhoon supported by Mst. Muradan. Punhoon, as we have already stated, had strained relations with his wife and had strong suspicions about her character. It is, therefore, unsafe to accept the word of Punhoon on this piece of evidence without there being any evidence in corroboration. The evidence of Mst. Muradan has also to be looked at with utmost circumspection as she is also said to have brought the meals for her husband simultaneously when meals were brought by Mst. Hajul. Apart from that, the solitary circumstance of Mst Hajul having brought the meals for her husband without there g being any evidence to show that she had cooked the meals of mixed up the arsenic in the meals will not be sufficient for holding Mst. Hajul to be liable for the offences with which she has been C charged. On this view of the matter, the motive alone cannot be the basis for conviction. The evidence on record, therefore, according to us, is not sufficient on which we can hold Mst. Hajul liable for the offences with which she has been charged. The evidence of the witnesses Punhoon, P. W. 4, Mst. Muradan, P. W. 5, Allahwarayo, P. W. 6, and Muhammad Ayub, P. W. 7 beyond what has been said above does not bring any other extra -material on record for the purpose of holding Mst. Hajul liable. The evidence against Mst. Hajul being insufficient, we consider the case against her to be doubtful. Giving the benefit of doubt to her, we accept her appeal and acquit her. She is on ball and her bail bonds stand cancelled. S. B./A.H. Appeal accepted.