2000 PLP 57 (YLR)

9. On the other hand learned A.A.‑G. submits that the complainant is real uncle of Mubarak Ali, the appellant in this case and was closely related to Sarryya accused (acquitted) who was his Bhabhi and there was no question of false implication of the appellants in this case. He further submits that all the injuries, which the doctor has mentioned in the post‑mortem examination report, were stated by the complainant in the F.I.R. and also in his statement before the trial Court. He submits that prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence recorded by the trial Court and also statements of the Doctor Muhammad Zahid, M.O., who was examined as P.W.4, who had conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, on 19‑12‑1993 at 2‑30 p.m. Injuries on the person of the deceased found by the Doctor and his opinion is reproduced below:‑‑‑ (1) A lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm into skin deep on left side of front of head. Crapitus was felt. Clotted blood was present. (2) Slight bleeding was present from left ear. Pinna and external auditory meautus were healthy. (3) There were multiple bruises in an area of 20 cm x 19 cm on left side of front of abdomen. (4) There were multiple bruises present on whole front of right thigh. No crapitus was present. (5) Multiple bruises were present on whole front of left thigh. No crapitus was present. (6) Penis and scrotum were having multiple bruises and abrasions and twisted and both testis in scrotan were felt compressed. Carnium and Spinal Cord. There was a lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm on left side of front of head. Only upper to layers of skin were involved on palpation. Crapitus was present on dissection. There was seen fracture of skull bone on left lateral (temporal side), extending towards to left ear and bleeding from left ear was due to this fracture and vertebrae were healthy. Membranes of brain in area of head injury were congested. Brain and spinal cords were healthy. Thorax. All organs were healthy. Abdomen. Multiple bruises were present in an area of 20 x 19 cm on left side of front of abdomen. Organs of generation external and internal. Penis and scrotum were having multiple bruises and abrasions and also were twisted. Testis were felt compressed. On dissection all vessels and nurves of testis were torn. Muscles of penis and testis were echymosed and peticheal haemorrhages were present on muscles. Spermatic cords, ductus deferences and epididymus of both testis were tome. Both testis were compressed sequesed. Morphology of both testis were completely destroyed and damaged. All other organs of abdomen were healthy and stomach was empty. OPINION. After going complete internal and external post‑mortem examination the doctor had come to the opinion that all the injuries were ante‑mortem and homicidal and injury No.6 on penis, scrotum and testis (both) was sufficient to cause death, in this case also injury No.l on skull was enough to cause death. Hence injuries Nos.1 and 6 both were responsible for death. Probable time between injury and death was immediately. Time between death and post‑mortem was within 16 hours.

11. If one goes to the statement of the Doctor mentioned above, it becomes crystal clear that the eye‑witnesses were not present at the spot. Had they been present, they must have also mentioned the injuries, which the deceased received on other parts of his body beside his penis. The occurrence took place in full winter season and the pretext of P. Ws. being present at the spot is highly doubtful. Even the complainant has admitted that he had no land. He had further admitted that he had gone to police station to lodge the F.I.R. on 19‑12‑1993. According to the police record the F.I.R. was lodged at 10‑45 a.m. after delay of 10 hours and delay was not explained, although distance from the place of occurrence to P.S. was 6 k.m. The defence plea taken by the appellant and story put forward by the prosecution if put in juxtaposition, the story put forward by the appellants seems to be more plausible and convincing one. 11‑A. The upshot of the above discussion is that prosecution has failed to bring on record evidence through an impeachable source. In this view of the matter, I accept this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants by the learned trial Court. They shall he released forthwith if they are not required in any other case. H.B.T./M‑5/L Appeal accepted.