MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus STATE

1. Muhammad Arshad, appellant was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura under section 302, P.P.C. in case F.I.R. No. 86, dated 21-4-1996 registered at Police Station Saddar, Sangla Hill, for commission of murder of Javed lqbal and was convicted vide the impugned judgment, dated 15-1-1998 under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was further ordered to pay compensation of Rs.25,000 to the legal heirs of Javed Iqbal in default of payment of the same to undergo six months' R.I. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to the accused/appellant.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as narrated in the complaint Exh. P.E. made by-Muhammad Shafi, P.W.5, on which formal F.I.R. Exh. P.E./1 was registered, are that the complainant had four daughters and one son Javed Iqbal, who was Constable in Punjab Constabulary and was married to Nusrat Bibi d/o Shafi Muhammad, r/o Soobay Chak. Out of the wedlock, one daughter was born but after 12 days, the daughter and Nusrat Bibi died. Thereafter, on 10-4-1996, Javed Iqbal married Mst. Ishrat, younger sister of his previous wife. On 23-4-1996, Ishrat had gone to see her parents, when at 'Maghrib' time, his son Javed Iqbal went to the fields to ease himself and a noise of fire shot was heard, and the inhabitants of the locality told the complainant about fire shot when he returned after offering his Maghrib prayers. He got worried and when his son Javed Iqbal did not return home for some time, he went out in his search. At mid-night dead body of Javed Iqbal was found from tobacco fields at a distance of 200 yards from the house, who was done to death by a fire-arm injury at his chest. It was alleged that some unknown accused had committed murder of his son.

3. Tanvir Raza, S.I., P.W.11 after registration of the criminal case arrived at the place of occurrence, he took the dead body into possession, prepared the injury statement vide memo. Exh.P.H, inquest report Exh.P.J -and despatched the dead body for post- mortem examination. He also collected blood stained earth from the place of occurrence which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.PA and one scarf PI which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.B. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Muhammad Aslam, P.W.9, who found the following injuries on the dead body of Javed Iqbal:---

(1) An abrasion .5 x c.m. on the left cheek.

(2) An abrasion 3 x 1 c.m. on left side of chin.

(3) An abrasion 1.5 x 1 c.m. on front and upper of right chest.

(4) An abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. on front and mid of left arm.

(5) An abrasion 0.3 x 0.3 c.m. on front and upper of right arm.

(6) A fire-arm punctured wound 1 c.m. x 1 c.m. on front and mid of left chest, going deep 3 c.m. from the mid line and 7.5 c.m. from the left nipple at 8-30 o'clock position.

4. In his opinion, the death occurred due to severe haemorrhage and shock leading to cardio respiratory failure.

5. On 7-11-1996, investigation of the case was entrusted to Muhammad Yaqub, S.I. P.W.6, who summoned the complainant and his statement was recorded. He suspected .one Arshad son of Rehmat, sister's son of the complainant who was arrested on 24-11-1996, but during the investigation, he was found innocent and was got discharged from the Ilaqa Magistrate. On 5-12-1996, Manzoor son of Rajawa, P. W .7 and Sarwar son of Rehmat appeared as witnesses and stated that the accused has confessed his guilt before them for the murder of Javed Iqbal because the deceased had illicit relations with daughter of his paternal uncle Anayat Faqir. On 6-12-1996 this witness arrested the appellant on 14-12-1996, who while in police custody led to the recovery of Revolver 30 bore which was taken into possession memo. attached with case registered under section 13 of Arms Ordinance, 1965, which was attested by Manzoor and Sarwar, P.Ws. He completed the investigation and challaned the accused., The accused denied the allegations and claimed the trial.

6. During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. Muhammad Shaft, complainant was examined as P.W.5, he supported the version of the F.I.R. Manzoor Ahmad was examined as P.W.7, he was the witness of extra judicial confession allegedly made by the accused before him and Sarwar son of Rehmat. Tanvir Raza, S.-I. P.W.11 and Muhammad Yaqub, P.W.6 had investigated the case. The remaining witnesses are of formal nature and need not to be discussed.

7. Towards the end of the trial, the statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., he denied the charge and claimed his innocence and false involvement.

8. The trial culminated into conviction of the appellant as mentioned above. Hence the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the case of the prosecution rests mainly on the statement of extra judicial confession before Manzoor, P.W.7 before whom it is alleged that the appellant has confessed his guilt but his statement has not been corroborated from any other independent source that even the other witness of extra judicial confession namely Sarwar son of Rehmat has not been examined by the prosecution: That Manzoor, P.W.7 was not a man in authority before whom the appellant would have confessed his guilt to seek his help; that the alleged weapon of offence i.e. Revolver 30-bore which was taken into possession by the police, memo. of recovery prepared by the Investigating Officer has not been brought on record, therefore, the case of the prosecution has not been proved against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt and has prayed for acquittal of the accused.

10. Conversely, the appeal has been opposed by the learned State Counsel, who has supported the impugned judgment.

11. Heard. Record perused.

12. The F.I.R. was recorded against unknown person; many persons were interrogated by the police including one Arshad son of Rehmat Ali, who is closely related to the complainant, whose real brother Sarwar was cited as prosecution witness of extra judicial confession but was given up being won over by the accused as per statement of D.D.A., dated 9-12-1997 before the trial Court; the appellant has been convicted on the statement of Manzoor Ahmad, P.W.7, who admitted that he is uneducated and is not a person in authority to help out the accused in any manner. He had appeared before the Investigating Officer after 4/5 days of the arrival of Arshad and confessed his guilt but never tried to produce him before the Investigating Officer. Although he has denied but this fact has been admitted by the other witnesses that he appeared before the Investigating Officer alongwith Sarwar son of Rehmat to support the innocence of Arshad son of Rehmat, brother of Sarwar witness. The evidence of extra judicial confession is a very weak type of the evidence and it is seldom relied upon to make basis to convict the person particularly uncorroborated evidence of extra judicial confession of one witness Manzoor, P. W .7.

13. Although the recovery of Revolver was effected at the instance of the appellant, but that is of no use in absence of recovery of any empty from the place of occurrence. The recovery memo was not brought on record and proved. Learned trial Court has given the reasons at page 11 of the judgment for holding the appellant guilty for the commission of, the crime by saying that during the course of investigation present accused misled the complainant as well as the police implicating other persons in order to divert the course of investigation, therefore, extra judicial confession made by the accused does not appear tainted with mala fides is hardly a ground or reason to connect the accused with alleged offence and to convict him. As already discussed, it is settled law that evidence of extra judicial confession is very weak type of evidence and seldom has been relied upon by itself, for being made basis of conviction as it can easily be procured, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as Ghulam Qadir v. State (PLD 1960 SC 254) and Haji Ahmad v. State (1979 PCr.LJ 460). After deep re appraisal of the evidence, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused/appellant.

14. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence of Arshad, appellant are set aside. He is acquitted from the charge. He is directed to be released from jail forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

15. H.B.T./M‑830/L Appeal allowed.