AKHTAR HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 1996 filed by Akhtar Hussain appellant who was convicted and sentenced by learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur for the murder of Jafar Hussain to undergo life imprisonment under section 302(b), P.P.C., and a fine of Rs. 50,000, in default to undergo further R.I. for two years, with the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C., vide judgment, dated 30‑10‑1996. Nasir Javed had also filed Criminal Revision No.75 of 1996, which shall too be disposed of through this judgment.
2. Occurrence in this case took place at 7‑30 p.m. on 25‑6‑1995 with the revenue estate of Mamoon Abad at a distance of 3 kilometres from Police Station Uch Sharif, District Bahawalpur when the matter was reported by Muhammad Nasir complainant 2‑30 mid, night on 26‑6‑1995 and the formal F. I. R. Exh.PA was recorded by Inspector/S.H.O., who was examined as P.W.11.
3. Brief facts of the case as set up by the prosecution were that at 7‑30 p.m. on 25‑6‑1995, Muhammad Nasir, complainant alongwith Hashmat Ali and Hafiz Sana Ullah were standing. outside the house when Akhtar Ali, came there and asked his brother Jafar Hussain to accompany him to his lands. As Akhtar Ali was on a cycle, so both went on cycle. He remained sitting in the house till 9‑30 p.m. when paternal aunt of the complainant asked him to inquire about Jafar Hussain. Complainant alongwith Hashmat and Sanaullah went to the house of Akhtar Hussain where they were told by Muhammad Arshad, brother of Akhtar Ali that he (Akhtar Ali) had not come back from the lands. Then the complainant alongwith his companions went to Tanki Chowk and from there they went to the bridge of Abbasia Canal where Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Ramzan met them. On being asked by Muhammad Iqbal etc. the complainant told them that they were searching for Akhtar Hussain and in turn Muhammad Iqbal etc., told that they had seen Akhtar Hussain alone with blood‑stained clothes. Complainant party went towards land of Akhtar Ali and after covering distance of 2 miles, complainant found the dead body of his brother Jafar Hussain whose neck had been cut off from the front side.
4. After registration of the formal F.I.R., Rana Saeed Ahmad, Inspector/S.H.O. (P.W.11) went to the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report Exh.PJ, injury statement Exh.PK and secured the blood stained earth from the spot and took the same into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. On 11‑7‑1995 appellant was arrested and he while in Police custody led to the recovery of Churri P.4 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PE. Appellant also led to the recovery of cycle P.5 and his blood‑stained clothes which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. After completion of the investigation appellant was challaned to face the trial.
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced 11 witnesses in all, out of whom, Nasir Javed P.W.3 and Hashmat Ali P.W.4 were eye‑witnesses while the doctor, who conducted post‑mortem on the dead body of Jaffar Hussain deceased was examined as P.W.10, thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., in which he pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. Reports of the Chemical Examiner are Exh.P.P. and Exh.P.O. while that of the Serologist are Exh.P.Q.and Exh.P.R.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has read before me the prosecution evidence and statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Thereafter he submits that it was an un-witnessed occurrence, that no body had seen the appellant while committing the murder of the deceased, that the story put forward in the F.I.R., is not believable, that statement of last seen furnished by the P.Ws. has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court in his judgment, that statement of extra judicial confession furnished by Muhammad Aslam has also been disbelieved. He adds that merely on the motive and recovery of knife from the appellant which was found to be stained with human blood as per report of Chemical Examiner and that of Serologist conviction and sentence cannot be awarded to the appellant.
7. On the other hand learned A.A.‑G. assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submits that there was no previous background of enmity between the patties. He further submits that evidence of last scene and that of extra‑judicial confession are such type of evidence which cannot be disbelieved. He further submits that recovery of weapon which was made on the pointation of the appellant was found to be stained with human blood. He also submits that appellant has also got recovered knife which was stained with blood and so there was no reason for his false implication. Lastly he submits that all these facts are corroborated by the motive furnished by the complainant in the F. I. R.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record available on the file. According to the' Doctor Abdul Malik, examined as P.W.10 who conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, 24 injuries were found on the dead body. According to my opinion a single person cannot cause 24 injuries to a person who was a young man, even the neck of the deceased was also cut. Evidence of last seen has already been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. Evidence of extra judicial confession through Muhammad Aslam has also been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. I have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.A.‑G. Merely on the recovery of knife allegedly made on the pointation of the appellant and the motive furnished by the complainant a person cannot be convicted and sentenced in a case under section 302, P.P.C. Court has to see the quality of evidence and not the quantity of evidence and in such‑like case where evidence cannot be brought on record through an unimpeachable source conviction and sentence cannot be awarded. Many doubts have been created by the prosecution, in the case.
9. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is accepted and conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant shall be released from the jail if he is not required in any other case.
H.B.T./A‑21/L
Appeal accepted.