Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No.121 of 1983, heard on 27th May 1986.

‑‑‑5. 302‑‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S.24‑‑Extra‑judicial confession‑‑Accused having no concern in his routine life with witness of extra- judicial confession and there was no formal visits between accused and such witness‑‑Witness of extra‑judicial confession making material improvements before Trial Court‑‑Witness neither apprehending accused nor producing him before Police but allowing him to go‑‑Required corroboration of evidence of extra‑judicial confession not forthcoming‑ Mere status and position of witness of extra‑judicial confession, held, was not sufficient to infer that whatever he had stated was nothing but truth‑‑Evidence of extra‑judicial confession disbelieved in circumstances.‑‑[Confession].

‑‑‑5.302‑‑Evidence Act (I of 1872), S.24‑‑Extra‑judicial confession is very weak type of evidence and has seldom been acted upon without any corroboration.‑‑[Confession].

‑‑‑S.302‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑Prosecution witness who claimed to have seen accused near place of occurrence not stating anything which connected accused with crime‑‑Though it was a blind murder yet said witness appeared before Police seven days after occurrence‑‑Evidence of such witness disbelieved in circumstances.‑‑[Witness].

‑‑-5.302‑‑Appreciation of evidence‑‑Prosecution witness who claimed to have seen accused near place of occurrence armed with Chhuri stating that he learnt about murder after an hour of having seen accused Bind that he had told persons about such meeting to persons present near dead body but such fact was not mentioned in F.I.R.‑‑No reason existing for such omission‑‑No implicit reliance, held, could be placed on uncorroborated testimony of such witness.

‑‑‑S.302‑‑Case of no ocular evidence‑‑Motive and recoveries disbelieved by Trial Court‑‑Remaining pieces of evidence not found to be strong enough to bring home guilt to accused beyond all shadow of doubt‑ Accused acquitted in circumstances.

Hasnat Ahmad Khan for Dr. Khalid Ranjha for Appellant.

Shabbir Lali for A.‑G. Punjab for the State.

Date of hearing: 27th May, 1986.

Nazir Ahmad sod‑ of Rehmat Ali (22) has been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sialkot on 22‑1‑1983 under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo one year's R.I. further. The fine was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. He has appealed.

2. The motive for the offence was that the appellant had illicit relations with Mst. Shafqat daughter of Muhammad Siddique, the employer of the deceased. Muhammad Malak deceased had seen him while kissing and embracing Mst. Shafqat. The appellant apprehended that the deceased might inform her relations and for this reason he done him to death with a Chhuri on the night of 16‑11‑1981 in a field situated in between Village Jajopur and Vains.

3. The occurrence was not witnessed by anybody but Nawab Din P.W.7, and uncle of the deceased had received information about his murder on which he went to the place of occurrence and after seeing the dead body of Muhammad Malak deceased proceeded to Police Station Phillaura and on the way came across Muhammad Salim A.S.I. (P.W.12) to whom he made his statement Exh.P.B. Formal F.I.R. Exh.PB/1 was recorded on the same night by H.C. Manzoor P.W.2 on the basis of statement Exh.P.B. Muhammad Salim, A . S . I . visited the place of occurrence. He prepared the inquest report Exh.P.H. and injury statement Exh.P.H/1 in respect of the dead body. He took into possession the clothes of the deceased and the blood‑stained earth.

4. Tariq Hanif, S.I. (P.W.13) arrested the appellant on 24‑11‑1981 after he had been produced before him by Muhammad Hussain (not examined) On 27‑11‑1981 the appellant got recovered Chhuri P.8 from his house which was stained with human blood vide Serologist's report Exh. P.Q.

5. Dr. Muhammad Sarwar P. W.14 conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Malak deceased on 17‑1‑1981 at 1.00 ,p. m. and found the following injuries thereon:

(1) An incised wound 2.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. on right cheek.

(2) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. x 0.7 c.m. on right mandible.

(3) An incised stab wound 4.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x deep to cavity on front of right chest starting from nipple running oblequely down‑wards, inwards and outwards. Edges of the wound were clean.

(4) An incised wound 4 c.m x 1.5 c.m. x deep to cavity on outside of right lumbar region. The direction of wound was downward: inwards. Edges of the wound were clean.

(5) An incised wound 10 c.m. x 3 c.m. deep to bone on front right lower rib. Edges of the wound were clean.

(6) A stab‑incised wound 7 c.m. x 3.5 c.m. x deep to cavity epigastrium. Direction of the wound was obliquely downward; Intestines and mesentry were protruding out. The large intestir was cut at places and faecal matter was coming out.

(7) A stab‑incised wound 7 c.m. x 4 c.m. x deep to cavity in out side of left lumbur region. The direction of the wound was fro below upwards, inwards and medially.

(8) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x bone deep on outer sic of right hip. Edges of the wound were clean.

(9) An incised wound 3.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on inner sic of front of right knee.

All the injuries were ante‑mortem and had been caused by sharp‑edge weapon. Injuries Nos.3, 6 and 7 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries Nos. 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8.

8. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied to prosecution allegations. He attributed the case to enmity and suspicion but did not produce any defence.

The prosecution tried to connect the appellant with the offence by the motive, the extra‑judicial confession before Munawar Sae( P.W.15, by the evidence of Hidayat Ullah P.W.8 who claimed to ha seen the appellant near the place of occurrence and Muhammad Yous P.W.9 who had seen the appellant running away from near the place occurrence while armed with Chhuri. The recovery of Chhuri P.8 the instance of appellant was also pressed into service.

9. The learned trial Court disbelieved the recoveries and the motive but considered the evidence of Munawar Saeed P.W.15 who proved the extra‑judicial confession and that of Hidayat Ullah P.W.8 and Muhamm; Yousaf P.W.9 as sufficient to connect the appellant with the offence.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is absolute no corroboration of Munawar Saeed P.W.15. There was no reason f the appellant to have approached him to make his breast clean. Accordir to Munawar Saeed P.W.15 the appellant had no concern with him in routine life and there was no formal visits between them. In his statement before the police there was no motive mentioned for the murder but the trial he stated that the appellant had informed that he had kill the deceased because he had surprised him while kissing and embracing Mst. Shafqat daughter of Muhammad Siddique. Furthermore he did not apprehend the appellant nor produce him before the police but allow him to go. The extra‑judicial confession has always been considered be a very weak evidence and has seldom been acted upon without a corroboration. The required corroboration is not forthcoming in the instant case. The mere status and position of Munawar Saeed P.W. is not sufficient to infer that whatever he has stated is nothing but t truth. Hidayat Ullah P.W.8 who claims to have seen the appellant near the place of occurrence has not said anything except that he had seen him smoking cigarette and when he enquired from him as why he was sitting there he replied that he was waiting for someone. He appeared before the police seven days after the occurrence. If he had actually seen the appellant near the place of occurrence he should have appeared before the police on the same day particularly when it was a blind murder. Likwise no implicit reliance can be placed on the uncorroborated testimony of Muhammad Yousaf P.W.9 who claims to have seen the appellant near the place of occurrence armed with a Chhuri. According to him he learnt about the murder after one hour of having seen the appellant there but surprisingly there is no mention of his meeting with the appellant in the F.I.R. There was no reason for this omission. According to him he had told the persons present near the dead body but could not explain as to why they did not mention this fact in the F. I. R.

11. As already stated above, there is no ocular evidence in the case. The motive and the recoveries have already been disbelieved b the trial Court. The remaining pieces of evidence are not strong enough to bring home the guilt to the appellant beyond all shadow of doubt. Consequently, I accept his appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence and acquit him of the charge. He shall be released from the Jai1J immediately if not required in any other case.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.