Mst. SHAZIA PARVEEN vs The STATE

' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA,. J.---For the murder of her husband namely Mumtaz Ahmad alias Taj during the night between 8/9-4-2006 in Chak No. 427/6-R Mst. Shazia Parveen appellant was booked in case F.I.R. No 134 registered at Police Station Faqeerwali, District Bahawalnagar on 9-4- 2006 for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. After a full-dressed trial she was convicted for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. Vide judgment dated 16-9-2006 handed down by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haroonabad, District Bahawalnager and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a sum Rs.50,000 to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to her. The appellant challenged her conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court, 1VIultan Bench, Multan through Criminal Appeal No. 3164 of 2006 which was heard and dismissed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the said Court vide judgment dated 21-7-2009. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 13-1-2010.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case, with their assistance.

3. The facts of this case as well as the evidence produced before the learned trial Court find an elaborate mention in the judgments passed by the learned courts below and, therefore, the same may not be reproduced here so as to avoid duplication and unnecessary repetition.

4. It has 'straightway been observed by us that the incident in issue had taken place at about 10-30 p.m. Inside the house wherein the appellant and her husband were living and no source of light at the spot had been disclosed or shown anywhere on the record. All the eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution were closely related to the deceased and they were admittedly chance witnesses who had failed to bring anything on the record to establish the stated reason for their availability near the deceased at the relevant time. Such related witnesses had failed to receive any independent corroboration inasmuch as there was no independent evidence produced regarding the alleged motive, the alleged recovery of a rope was legally inconsequential and the medical evidence had gone a long way in contradicting the eye-witnesses in many ways. The duration of the injuries and death recorded by the doctor in the Post-mortem Examination Report had rendered the time of death alleged by the eye-witnesses quite doubtful, the stomach contents belied the eye-witnesses regarding the time of occurrence and the negative report of-the Chemical Examiner showed that no poison or intoxicant had been detected inside the body of the deceased which squarely contradicted the eye-witnesses. In these circumstances it could not have been held by the learned courts below that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

5. For what has been discussed above we have reached an inescapable conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove its, case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded and upheld by the learned courts below are set aside and she is acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to her. She shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.