MUHAMMAD ALI vs The STATE

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Muhammad Ali appellant had allegedly murdered one Mst. Naseem Bibi by firing at her at about 01.30 p.m. on 24.10.2007 in village Dhaddar in the area of Police Station Nowshera, District Khushab in the backdrop of a motive according to which a month prior to the present occurrence the appellant had teased Mst. Nassem Bibi deceased but she had abused him and had also insulted him. On the basis of the said allegations the appellant was booked in case FIR No. 149 registered at the above mentioned Police Station on the same day and after a regular trial the appellant was convicted by the trial court for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. and was sentenced to death and to pay compensation. An appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court subsequently failed to the extent of his conviction but the same was partly allowed to the extent of his sentence of death which was reduced by the High Court to imprisonment for life.

Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court granted on 04.10.2013.

2. Leave to appeal had been granted in this case in order to reappraise the evidence and with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have undertaken that exercise.

3. A bare look at the site-plan of the place of occurrence shows that the incident in issue had taken place at an open and uninhabited place. The ocular account of the incident in issue had been furnished before the trial court by two eye-witnesses and they were Shaukat Ali complainant (PW7) and Atta Muhammad (PW8). Both the said eyewitnesses were very closely related to Mst. Naseem Bibi deceased inasmuch as the complainant was a brother of the deceased and the other eye- witness was an uncle of the deceased. Both the said related eyewitnesses were also chance witnesses as both of them lived about three miles away from the scene of the crime. In the FIR the reason stated for their availability at the spot at the relevant time was that they were proceeding in connection with a personal work but no such personal work had been disclosed in the FIR. We have gone through the statements made by the said eye-witnesses before the trial court and have pertinently observed that both the said eye-witnesses had advanced no reason whatsoever before the trial court explaining why they were present at the spot at the relevant time. Such related and chance witnesses who did not explain any particular reason for their availability at the scene of the crime could not readily be believed and this is more so when they did not receive any independent corroboration. In the case in hand the High Court had itself found that the motive set up by the prosecution had not been proved by it and the alleged recovery of the weapon of offence from the appellant's custody during the investigation had also not been relied upon by the High Court. The motive set up by the prosecution was the only factor which could have propelled the appellant into aggression against the deceased and with failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive there was no earthly reason left with the appellant to do away with the deceased who was a lady.

For all these reasons we have arrived at an inescapable conclusion that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and also that the eye-witnesses produced by the prosecution in support of its case were nothing but planted and procured witnesses. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by extending the benefit of doubt to him. He shall be released from the jail forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case.