1994 P Cr (PLP)

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that P.W3 Muhammad Boota on 3-2-1988 submitted complaint Exh.P.C. before P.W.14 Muhammad Mushtaq, Inspector/S.H.O. who on its basis correctly recorded the F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1, to the effect that about six years earlier his sister Mst. Kausar Parveen was married with Ghulam Farid. They had strained relations and due to that the deceased had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband for 2-1/2 years ago. Thereafter, on the intervention of the complainant, the matter was compromised and she started living in the house of her husband, but Ghulam Haider, his brother and Ghulam Ali, his father had a grievance that by filing the suit the deceased had insulted them and Ghulam Farid should divorce her, but he refused to do SO/ Due to that Ghulam Ali and Ghulam Haider used to abuse and give beating to the deceased, so that she should leave the house. On a day before the occurrence the deceased sent a message to the complainant P.W.3 Muhammad Boota and his father that Ghulam Ali and Ghulam Haider daily abused her and they should come and advise them, on which on the day of occurrence at about 12-30 (noon time), P.W.6 Muhammad Iqbal, P.W.S Arshad Ali were taken along by P.W3 Muhammad Boota for a talk face to face between Ghulam Ali, Ghulam Haider and the deceased and to enquire from them about her.fault. When they reached near the house of Ghulam Farid, they witnessed that Ghulam Haider had laid down Mst. Kausar Parveen on the floor and pressed her neck with the Dopatta, who after witnessing the P.Ws. while taking Dopatta with him and scaling over the wall escaped. When the P.Ws. reached near Mst. Kausar Parveen, they witnessed that she had expired. The occurrence was witnessed by complainant Muhammad Boota (P.W3), Arshad Ali (P.WS) and Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.6). It was further alleged that Ghulam Haider on the abetment of his father had killed the innocent lady. Leaving behind P.WS Arshad Ali and P.W.6 Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Boota (P.W3) presented the complaint Exh.P.C. before P.W.14 Muhammad Mushtaq, S.H.O. Hence this case. The appellant was challaned and sent up for trial by the police. A charge under section 302, P.P.C. was framed against the appellant, to which he denied and claimed trial.

3. The prosecution examined 15 P.Ws. in all to substantiate its case. P.W.1 Faiz Muhammad Patwari had prepared site plan Exh.PA. and its duplicate Exh.PA./1. P.W.2 Muhammad Shafi, F.C. on 3-2-1988 had escorted the dead body to the mortuary and after autopsy the Medical Officer handed him over the last-worn clothes of the deceased Exhs. P.1 to P3 alongwith a sealed phial and a sealed envelope which he delivered to the S.H.O. P.W.14 who secured the same vide memo. Exh.P.B. P.W3 Muhammad Boota after narrating the facts mentioned by him in his complaint Exh.P.C. on the basis of which- formal F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 was recorded, further stated that at the relevant time when he alongwith P.W.5 and P.W.6 entered the house, they witnessed the appellant strangulating his sister Mst. Kausar Parveen who was then lying on the floor inside the room. On witnessing the P.Ws. the appellant took the cloth with which he was strangulating the deceased and after scaling the outer wall of the house ran away. The P.Ws. reached near Mst. Kausar Parveen and witnessed that she had expired. Leaving behind P.Ws5 and 6 he reached the police station and submitted complaint Exh.P.C. before the S.H.O. P.W.15. He further stated that he had got drafted the complaint out of the police station by a literate person and the F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 was drafted in accordance with the application Exh.P.C. which was read over to him and thumb-marked by him in token of its correctness.

4. P.W.4 Dr. Abdul Wahab, on 3-2-1988 at 3-30 p.m. conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Kausar Parveen and found the following injuries:

(1)??????? A contused wound 1" x 1/3" x skin deep on the chin. (2)??????? Mark of ligature on the front and sides of neck from below the, chin to the supra sternal notch. Tongue was swollen, dark in colour, bitten and held between the teeth. Hands were clenched. Bleeding from mouth and nostrils. Face was cyanosed and mark with petechiae. The eyes were closed, conjunctivas were congested. Pupils were dialated and lips were blue. Ligature mark on the front and sides of neck base of which was soft and radish having abrasions and echymosis at the edges. Scratches and abrasions 'on the neck were present. Subcutaneous tissue under the liglature mark was echymosis and there was extravasation of blood into the subcutaneous and muscles of the neck which were lacerated. There was laceration and rupture carotid artries. Chest cavity was full of blood. Wind pipe, right and left lungs were congested and exuded dark fluid blood and air on sections. Right side of the heart was full of blood and left side was empty. Blood vessels were injured. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to strangulation and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries were ante-mortem. Probable duration between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post-mortem about three hours. 5,???????? P.W.5 Arshad Ali stated that P.W.3 Muhammad Boota was his brother and the deceased was his sister who was married to Ghulam Farid about 6 years before the occurrence. He reiterated and corroborated the statement of P.W

3. P.W.6 Muhammad Iqbal stated that the deceased Kausar Parveen was his sister-in-law. She was married with Ghulam Farid 6 years before the occurrence end due to maltreatement other in-laws she instituted a suit for dissolution of marriage, but the same was withdrawn on their intervention and the spouses started living happily. Even after that the behaviour of in-laws of the deceased was not changed, she sent a message to ahem for reconciliation a day before the occurrence. At about 12-30 p.m. on the fateful day, he alongwith Muhammad Boota and Arshad AA P.Ws 3 and 5 vLifed the house of Nfst. Kausar Parveen and witnessed Abdul Majid appellant strangulating her with a Dopatta who was then lying on the floor inside the room. On witnessing the P. Ws. the appellant pulled the Doptta from the neck of the deceased and fled away after scaling over the outer wall of the house. They raised alarm which attracted Ghulam Hussain (P.W.7), Muhammad Arshad P.W.8 and Khadim Hussain P.W. (given up), but the appellant ran away after riding a cycle. The police arrived at the spot and P.W.6 attested the inquest report Exh.P.E. A Key of the cycle lef! behind by the appellant Exh.P.4 was also taken into possession by the police vide memo. Exh.P.H. attested by him. P.W.7 Ghulam Hussain, a neighbour of the deceased, at the relevant time and day was present in his house, was watching the installation of hand pump m his house which was being installed by P.W.8 Muhammad Arshad. Meanwhile they heard an alarm from the house of the deceased. He alongwith P.W.8 Muhammad Arshad and P.W. Khadim Hussain (given up) reached the lane and witnessed the appellant scaling over the wall of Ghulam Farid and after riding a bicycle went towards north. He had also observed that the cycle which was taken away by the appellant was numbered 13 and it was written on its mudguard ?M. Nazir?. He and the other P.Ws. chased the accused/appellant, but he escaped. P.W.8 Muhammad Arshad and P.W.3 Muhammad Boota stated that the appellant had murdered the wife of Ghulam Farid. He joined the investigation and had identified the cycle on which the appellant had run away. The cycle was produced by Muhammad Nazir (P.W.10) which was secured by the police vide memo. Exh.PJ. P.W.8 Muhammad Arshad at the time of occurrence was installing a hand pump in the house of P.W.7. He corroborated the statement made by P.W.7 Ghulam Hussain P.W.9 Muhammad Bakhsh H.C. had kept in Malkhana sealed phial and a sealed envelope on 3-2-1988 and had despatched the said phial and the envelope to the Chemical Examiner, Multan through Constable Muhammad Asghar F.C. (P.W.11). P.W.10 Muhammad Nazir who had a cycle service shop stated that he had given his cycle on rent to the appellant. Number of the cycle was 13 and his name was written on its rear mudguard. He further stated that on 2-2-1988 the appellant who was previously known to him got on rent cycle No.13 and returned the same on 3-2-1988 at 12-55 p.m. and paid Rs.10 as its rent. Thereafter, during investigation he produced the cycle alongwith the register PS maintained by him. On page 14 of Exh.P.5 these was an eatry which read as Cycle No. 13, Abdul Majid son of Munshi who got the cycle at 8-25 and returned the same at 12-55 p.m. and had paid Rs.10 as its rent. This entry was with his signatures. The key of the cycle was Exh.P.4, P.W.11 Muhammad Asghar Constable had delivered the sealed phial and a sealed envelope in the office of Chemical Examiner, Multan on 14-2-1988. P.W.12 Ghulam Farid, husband of the deceased stated about the motive that he was married with the deceased and had strained relations due to his father Ghulam Ali and brother Ghulam Haider. She got annoyed and filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, but the same was withdrawn on a compromise. The appellant was the sister's son of his wife, who demanded from him Rs. 10,000 for payment of the shop which he had purchased. The deceased was present, who had told him that they had no money. The appellant felt aggrieved and after abusing her left the house and one day earlier to the present occurrence at about evening time, the appellant again visited his house and stated that the person from whom he had purchased the shop was insisting upon him for money, and again requested for the amount, which was refused. Thereafter, the appellant requested the deceased that she should sell her ornaments and give him the money, who also refused, whereupon he stated that she had insulted him. The appellant threatened the deceased that he would take revenge. On the day of incident he had been informed that his wife had been murdered by Abdul Majid appellant. He reached his house and found her lying dead on the floor. P.W.13 Muhammad Bashir stated that he was sitting at the Dera of Manzoor Ahmad P.W. (given up) where Manzoor Ahmad was also present. In the meantime, Abdul Majid appellant came there and told them that he had committed the murder of his mother's sister Mst. Kausar Parveen and that he should be produced before theopolice, and both of them produced him before the police. Four/five days thereafter, the appellant while in police custody led to the recovery of Dopatta P.7 from a suit-case lying in his house, which was secured vide memo. ExhRK. attested by him. P.W.14 Muhammad Mushtaq, Inspector/S.H.O. was the Investigating Officer. He recorded the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 on the basis of complaint Exh.P.C. submitted by P.W3 Muhammad Boota reached the spot, prepared injury statement Exh.P.D. and inquest report Exh.P.E. and despatched the dead body to the mortuary. He arrested the appellant on 24-2-1988, who during interrogation led to the recovery of Dopatta P.7 which was secured by him vide memo. Exh.P.K. He submitted an application under section 164, Cr.P.C. and in consequence whereof Mr. Abdul Matloob Khan, M.I.C., Sadiqabad (P.W.LS) recorded confessional statement of the appellant Exh.P.L. After completion of the investigation he submitted challan in the Court. P.W.15 Mr. Abdul Matloob, M.I.C. on 29-2-1988 received an application Exh.P.L. from P.W.14 for recording confessional statement of the appellant. He summoned the appellant from judicial lock-up vide his order Exh.P.L./1. He recorded confessional statement of the appellant Exh.P.L./5 after recording questions and answers Exh.P.L/2. Statement Exh.P.L./5 was recorded on oath. Certificate Exh.P.L./6 was to the effect that the accused had made voluntary statement.

6. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against him and the recovery of Dopatta P.7 at his instance. He stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case and that the witnesses were closely related to the deceased. He further stated that he was innocent. Ghulam Haider was real murderer of his maternal-aunt, who is real brother of Ghulam Farid, husband of the deceased. He also stated that he had been falsely substituted with the connivance of the police. He neither made statement on oath nor produced evidencein defence.

7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the record. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, and he has been made a scape?goats after deliberations. It is further contended that the trial Court had not believed the recovery evidence, extra judicial confession and moreover to strengthen the prosecution case dishonest improvements were made by the P.Ws. in their statements. F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 was recorded on the basis of complaint Exh.P.C. submitted by P.W.3 Muhammad Boota, real brother of the deceased. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W3 specifically stated that he had got drafted the complaint Exh.P.C. from a literate person present outside the police station and presented the same to P.W.14 Muhammad Mushtaq, S.H.O., who on its basis recorded formal F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 and read over the same to P.W

3. F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 does not contain the name of the appellant and contains the name of Ghulam Haider, real brother of husband of the deceased. After recording F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 P.W.14 reached the spot with P.W3 Muhammad Boota complainant, where the dead body was lying. He prepared inquest report Exh.P.E. therein he clearly stated name of the accused as Ghulam Haider, who was originally named in the F.I.R. Exh.P.C./1 recorded on the basis of complaint Exh.P.C., and was alleged to have run away alongwith the Dopatta after scaling over the wall of the house of the deceased. It was further mentioned there that Ghulam Haider had murdered the lady on the abetment of his father. God knows who compelled thereafter the complainant to name the appellant as the culprit. P.W3 stated that he made a supplementary statement at the spot and had named the appellant as the culprit, but the inquest Exh.P.E. prepared at the spot, speaks otherwise.

8. It has been specifically stated by the complainant P.W.3 Muhammad Boota, P.W.5 Arshad Ali, both brothers of the deceased and P.W.6 Muhammad Iqbal before the trial Court that due to bad relations between the deceased and her husband and on account of maltreatment by the in-laws of the deceased, the deceased had filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against her husband, which was later on withdrawn on account of compromise effected between the parties on the intervention of the P.Ws. The eye-witnesses P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 hnd reached the spot after they had received a message through the mother of the deceased one day earlier to the present occurrence to again settle the dispute between the deceased and her in-laws. Specifically they stated that they had witnessed Ghulam Haider, brother of husband of the deceased strangulating the deceased with Dopatta while lying her down on the floor and after witnessing the P.Ws. he ran away after scaling over the wall of the house. But later on before making their statements they made a somersault and got recorded the appellant as the real culprit and had further made dishonest improvements in their statements stating there that the appellant had left behind a key P.4 of a cycle at the spot and after scaling over the wall had escaped on a cycle parked outside the house. Neither the cycle was exhibited in the Court nor identified by the P.Ws. in the Court. Only P.W.14 had identified the cycle in the Court. P.W.10 Muhammad Nazir is stated to be the owner of a shop ?Narir Cycle Works' from where the appellant allegedly hired cycle No.13 and stated that the cycle was a new one with a new lock and without key it could not work. However, it has been stated by the P.Ws. that while leaving behind the key and without opening the lock of the cycle, nobody knows how the appellant was able to escape from the spot on the said cycle.

9. P.W.13 Muhammad Bashir has stated that the appellant reached the Dera of Manzoor Ahmad P.W. (given up) and stated before them that he had murdered the deceased and he should be produced before the police and thereafter the appellant was produced. He had also led to the recovery of Dopatta P.7 secured vide memo. Exh.P.K. attested by him. The appellant is stated to have made extra judicial confession in the presence of Manzoor Ahmad, owner of the Dera where P.W.13 Muhammad Bashir was also present. Manzoor Ahmad P.W. was given up. Sister of the complainant P.W.3 is married to P.W.13, his statement was not believed by the trial Court. P.W.15 M.I.C. is stated to have recorded the confessional statement Exh.P.L./5 of the appellant and the trial Court has not relied upon its statement, and stated that he did not know even the A.B.C. of the criminal law. The evidence of extra?judicial confession as well as judicial confession was not believed by the trial Court. Moreover, the recovery of Dopatta P.7 at the instance of the appellant has not been relied as P.7 was not stained with blood.

10. The motive attributed to the appellant is that he had a grudge against the deceased as he was not paid Rs. 10,000 which he had to pay to a person from which he had purchased a shop. It is also alleged that he asked the deceased to sell her ornaments for the sake of giving him Rs.10,

000. P.W.12 Ghulam Farid, husband of the deceased has stated about motive behind the present occurrence, which prompted the appellant to commit the offence. The statement made by P.W.13 has not been corroborated by any other witness.

11. The name of the appellant is not mentioned in the F.I.R. wherein Ghulam Haider, brother of husband of the deceased was named as the assailant, but later on the appellant was involved in the case. The eye-witnesses have made dishonest improvements in their statements. The statements made by the P.Ws. do not inspire confidence and no reliance can be placed upon their testimony. There is no independent corroboration of the statements of eye-witnesses furnished on record. The eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased and their statements cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by independent and strong evidence. The evidence of extra judicial confession, judicial confession and the recovery has not been believed even by the trial Court.

12. Pursuant to the above discussion I am of the view that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the case against the appellant beyond doubt and giving him the benefit of doubt I acquit him of the charge. The appellant is in jail, who shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. N.H.Q./A-497/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted