IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
BENCH AT SUKKUR
Criminal Jail Appeal No. S – 38 of 2013
Appellant : Ali Gul son of Atta Muhammad
bycaste
Mirbahar through Mr. Ubedullah Malano, Advocate
Respondent : The
State, through Mr. Syed Sardar Ali Shah
Deputy
Prosecutor General
Date of hearing : 06-05-2019
Date of decision : 06-05-2019
JUDGMENT
IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J:- The appellant by way of instant Criminal Jail
Appeal has impugned judgment dated 04th June 2013 passed by learned
IInd Additional Sessions Judge Khairpur, whereby they he for an offence
punishable u/s 302(b) r/w Section 34 PPC for committing Qatl-e-Amd of Mst.
Rozina has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with
fine of Rs.100,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of said deceased and in
case of his failure to make payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for
six months, with benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.
2. It
is alleged that the appellant with rest of the culprits by making trespass into
house of PW Bashir Ahmed committed death of his wife Mst. Rozina by causing her
hatchet blows for that they were booked and reported upon by the police.
3. At
trial, the appellant did not plea guilt to the charge and prosecution to prove
it examined PW/1 HC Ghulam Shabbit (at Ex. 5), he produced receipt with regard
to delivery of dead body of deceased, PW/2 Dr. Seema Shaikh (at Ex. 8), she
produced post mortem report of the dead body of said deceased and letter of the
police, PW/3 complainant Ghulam Mustafa (at Ex. 11), he produced FIR of the
present case, PW/4 Bashir Ahmed at Ex. 13, PW/5 Tapedar Nadir Ali (at Ex. 15),
he produced sketch of wardhat, PW/6 ASI Noor Ahmed (at Ex. 16), PW/7
SIO/Inspector Badaruddin Bhutto (at Ex. 17), he produced inquest report, memo
of place of incident, memo of recovery of clothes of deceased, memo of arrest
of accused, memo of recovery and then closed the side.
4. The appellant during course of his
examination u/s 342 Cr.P.C denied the prosecution allegation by pleading innocence,
by stating that Mst. Rozina was killed by her husband Bashir Ahmed. Appellant did
not examine himself on oath, but examined DWs Nizamuddin, Guhram and Ghous Bux
in his defence and then closed the side.
5. It has inter-alia stated by DWs
Nizamuddin, Guhram and Ghous Bux that Mst. Rozina was killed by her husband
Bashir Ahmed.
6. On evaluation of evidence so
produced by the prosecution, learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the
appellant by way of impugned judgment, as stated above.
7. It
is contended by learned counsel for the appellant the appellant being innocent
has been involved in this case falsely by the complainant party in order to
satisfy their dispute with him over ‘Karap’, the FIR of the incident has been
lodged the delay of one day; the medical evidence is in conflict with ocular
evidence so far number of injuries is concerned and the evidence which the
prosecution has produced before learned trial Court being inconsistent and
doubtful has been believed by learned trial Court without lawful justification.
By contending so, he sought for acquittal of the appellant.
8. Learned
Deputy Prosecutor General for the State has sought for dismissal of the instant
appeal by contending that the impugned judgment is well‑reasoned.
9. I
have considered the above arguments and perused the record.
10. Admittedly the incident took place within the house of
PW Bashir Ahmed, who happened to be husband of the deceased. It was natural
that he ought to have lodged the FIR of the incident, which he has failed to
lodge without any lawful justification, such omission on his part could not be
over looked. The statement u/s 161 CrPC of PW Bashir Ahmed as per SIO/Inspector
Badaruddin has been recorded on 13-12-2007.
If it was so, then it was with the delay of one day to the FIR even. No
plausible explanation to such late recording of 161 CrPC statement of PW Bashir
Ahmed has been offered by the prosecution. In that situation, no much reliance
could be placed upon evidence of PW Bashir Ahmed.
11. In case of Abdul Khaliq vs. the State (1996 SCMR 1553), it was observed by Hon’ble Court that;
“----S.161---Late
recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C reduces
its value to nil unless delay is plausibly explained.”
12. PW
Ghulam Murtaza being sole independent
witness has not been examined by the prosecution without lawful justification.
He was given up. The inference which could be drawn of his non-examination
would be that he was not going to support the case of prosecution. On ocular
premises now there remains with the prosecution, the evidence of complainant
Ghulam Mustafa. It has been stated by the complainant that deceased Mst. Rozina
was his sister. On 12-12-2007 he, PWs Bashir Ahmed, Ghulam Murtaza and the deceased
when were available at the place of incident, there at about 5-00 am, came,
accused Ali Gul (appellant), Atta Muhammad and Ashiq, they committed death of the
deceased by causing her hatchets blows. The incident was reported to the police
and dead body of the deceased was then taken to Hospital for postmortem. The
incident was reported to police with the delay of more than two hours. Such
delay could not be ignored. As per postmortem report, time between the death
and postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was about twelve hours. Why the
postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted with such delay? No
explanation to it is furnished by the prosecution.
13. In case of MUHAMMAD RAMZAN AND ANOTHER
VS. THE STATE (2009 P.Cr.L.J 533), It has
been held by Hon;ble Lahore High Court that:
“Delayed post mortem usually needs
to an inference that FIR might be recorded after preliminary investigation”
14. No postmortem report in original is
produced at trial by the prosecution. As per the complainant, the deceased
sustained six injuries, same according to medical officer Dr. Seema were nine
in number. Such inconsistency with regard to number of injuries between medical
and ocular evidence could not be over looked. As per complainant, he went to
the house of deceased, 01 day prior to the incident. The complainant in that
respect is belied by PW Bashir Ahmed, by stating that the complainant came to
his house 2/3 days prior to the incident. Such inconsistency has made the
availability of the complainant at the place of incident to be doubtful, who
even otherwise was resident of Saeed Abad, District Sukkur a distant place. In
that situation, no much reliance could be placed upon the evidence of the
complainant as he is appearing to be chance witness.
15. In case of G.M Niaz Vs.The State (2018 SCMR 506), it has been held by Hon’ble apex Court that:
“First Information Report in respect
of the alleged occurrence had been lodged after about seven hours and forty
minutes which by itself was a circumstance doubting the claimed availability of
the eye-witnesses with the deceased at the time of occurrence---Post-mortem
examination of the deadbody of deceased was conducted belatedly after two days
of his death---Further deceased received three blunt weapon injuries which had
not been explained by the eye-witnesses---Blood-stained clothes of the deceased
had not been brought on the record of case---High Court had categorically found
that the motive set up by the prosecution had not been proved by it---Alleged
recovery of a firearm from the accused's custody during the investigation was
legally inconsequential because no crime-empty had been secured from the place
of occurrence so as to connect the recovered weapon with the alleged
murder---No blood-stained earth had been secured from the tea stall whereat the
occurrence had statedly taken place--- Prosecution had failed to prove its case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence of the
accused were set aside in circumstances and he was acquitted of the charge of
murder by extending the benefit of doubt to him
16. The sketch of wardhat, which is
brought on record by prosecution through Tapedar Nadir Ali is taking no mention
of the availability of the complainant and his witnesses at the place of
incident. There is no report which may suggest that the blood stained earth
secured from the place of incident has been subjected to chemical examination. The recovery of the hatchet is made from the
appellant on 7th day of his arrest, same too has not been subjected
to examination by expert. In that situation, the appellant could hardly be
connected with recovery of alleged hatchet. As per PW/mashir Dost Ali, the
contents of the mashirnamas were not read over to him, which appears to be
significant. As per SIO/Inspector Badaruddin, all the documents relating to the
investigation were prepared by Munshi Ghulam Shabbir at his dictation. No document so produced by the prosecution
contains any note that it is prepared by Munshi Ghulam Shabbir at the dictation
of SIO/Inspector Badaruddin. In that situation, it could be concluded safely
that it was table investigation of the case, which allegedly was conducted by
SIO/Inspector Badaruddin Memon.
17. The conclusion which could be drawn
of the above discussion would be that the prosecution has not been able to
prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt.
18. In case of Faheem Ahmed Farooqui vs. The State (2008
SCMR 1572), It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that;
“Single
infirmity creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable and prudent
mind regarding the truth of the charge makes the whole case doubtful.”
19. For
what has been discussed above, the impugned judgment is set aside, consequently
the appellant is acquitted of the offence for which he was charged, tried and
convicted by learned trial Court, he shall be released forthwith in present
case.
20. The instant Criminal Jail Appeal is
disposed of accordingly.
Judge
Nasim/P.A