MANZOOR AHMAD AND ANOTHER Versus THE STATE S.M. Abdul Wahab , Nemo
This is an appeal by Manzoor Ahmad 16 and Shabbir 17 to challenge their conviction under section 302/34, P.P.C. by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha who vide judgment dated 17‑12‑1983 sentenced them to imprisonment for life. The two appellants were allowed benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. as well.
2. In brief the prosecution case is that Muhammad Wazir complainant at about sunset time on 28-11-1981 alongwith Haji Ibrahim P.W. came to Sargodha to see his sister Mst. Waziran deceased who resided alongwith her husband Ghulam Rasul in Quarter No.2/M Canal Colony Sargodha. The quarter was locked. They, therefore, started searching Mst. Waziran. In the meanwhile Malik Muhammad Bakhsh Councillor reached there. A shortwhile, thereafter Manzoor Ahmad and Shabbir accused also came there. They were asked about the whereabouts of Mst. Waziran. At this Manzoor Ahmad accused stated that he alongwith Shabbir had murdered Mst. Waziran and her son Zulfiqar. The motive for this murder was stated by him to be ill‑treatment of Mst. Waziran towards him. He begged to be excused and appologized for the crime. Manzoor Ahmad accused gave the key of the lock of the quarter to Muhammad Wazir. Both the accused were apprehended there. The lock of the quarter was opened with the key. The dead bodies of Mst. Waziran and Zulfiqar were found lying in the quarter. Muhammad Wazir complainant P.W.7 leaving the two accused in the care of Haji Ibrahim and Malik Muhammad Bakhsh went to Police Station Cantt. Sargodha about one mile from the place of occurrence and reported the matter at 11 p.m. (a little before mid‑night) on 18‑11‑1981. The F.I.R. Exh.P.K. was recorded by S.I. Abdul Hameed P.W.8. The dead bodies of Mst. Waziran aged about 35 years and Zulfiqar aged about 6/7 years were sent for post‑mortem examination which was conducted by P.W.1 Dr. Liaqat Ali on 29‑11‑1981 at about 3 p.m.
The medical officer on external examination of the dead body of Mst. Waziran found 18 incised wounds of various dimensions on front of left chest, front of right chest, abdominal cavity and other parts of the body. On dissection the heart was found cut on left side under injuries 2 and 3. Cartilagenous parts of the ribs were cut under injury No.3. Lower part of right side of ribs and liver were cut under injury No.8. The small gutt was injured under injuries 9, 10 and 11. The chest and abdominal cavities were found full of blood. The walls of thorex, right lung pericardium, heart, liver, small intestines and walls of abdomen had also been injured. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries 2, 3 and 7 to 11 which were individually and collectively with others sufficient, in ordinary course of nature to cause death. All injuries had been caused by sharp‑edged weapon. The duration between injuries and death was within few minutes and post‑mortem was conducted within 48 hours of death.
The medical officer on external examination of the dead body of Zulfiqar found 10 incised and stab wounds of various dimensions on front of right and left chest in epigastric region, left lower part of chest, left and right upper side of abdomen and also on front of left lower abdomen. On dissection heart was found punctured through and through under injury No.1. Liver was cut under injuries 4, 5 and 9. The small and large guts were injured under injuries 6, 7 and 8. There was fracture of cartilagenous part of lower rib. The death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injuries 1, 4 to 7, 9 and 10 which were individually and collectively with other injuries sufficient in ordinary course of nature, to cause death. All injuries had been caused by sharp‑edged weapon. The death occurred within few minutes of receipt of injuries and post‑mortem was conducted within 48 hours of death
3. S.I. Abdul Hameed P.W.8 during inspection of the spot of occurrence on 29‑11‑1981 collected blood‑stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.G. F.C. Muhammad Khan after post‑mortem examination produced the bed and bedding on which Mst. Waziran was lying at the time of occurrence. These were taken in possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. by S.I. Abdul Hameed. On 29‑11‑1981 Muhammad Wazir P.W.7 produced lock of quarter P.12 and its key P.13 before S.I. Abdul Hameed P. W .8 who took them in possession vide memo. Exh. P.H. attested by Muhammad Wazir P.W.8 and Haji Ibrahim, not examined.
Both the accused were arrested on 29‑11‑1981. Manzoor accused was found wearing shirt P.14 and Shalwar P.15, both blood‑stained. These were taken in possession vide memo. Exh.P.J. by S.I. Abdul Hameed P.W.8 in presence of Muhammad Wazir P.W.7 and Haji Ibrahim P.W., not examined.
On 3‑12‑1981 Manzoor Ahmad accused while in police custody led to the recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri P.16 from near the Chhapar of the house of his father. It was taken in possession by S.I. Abdul Hameed P.W.8 vide memo. Exh.P.L. in presence of Muhammad Wazir P.W.7 and Haji Ibrahim P.W., not examined. Clothes P.14 and P.15 and Chhuri P.16 were found stained with human blood vide report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.S and that of Serologist Exh.P.T.
The accused were challaned after completion of investigation.
4. In support of its case prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all. There is no eye‑witness of the occurrence. The case is based on the evidence of extra‑judicial confession and recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri P.16 which was supported by Malik Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.6 and Wazir P.W.7. The medical evidence was furnished by Dr. Liaqat Ali PW.1. The case was investigated by S.I. Abdul Hameed P.W.8. The evidence of the rest of the witnesses was of formal nature.
The accused when examined after close of prosecution evidence denied the charge and pleaded innocence. They did not produce any evidence in defence except School Leaving Certificate D.C. of Manzoor Ahmad accused which indicate his date of birth as 15‑4‑1968. Copy of Nikah of Mst. Waziran deceased with Ghulam Rasul Exh.D.B. was also tendered in evidence.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge placed reliance on the evidence of motive. recovery of Chhuri P.16, recovery of blood‑stained clothes and extra‑judicial confession and convicted the appellants as stated above.
5. I have gone through the evidence on record. Zulfiqar deceased was son of Mst. Waziran deceased. Muhammad Wazir P.W.7 is real brother of Mst. Waziran. Haji Ibrahim given up P.W. was husband of a sister of Mst. Waziran deceased. Malik Muhammad Bakhsh P.W. is a Councillor.
The mother of Shabbir accused is sister of the father of Manzoor Ahmad accused.
The recovery of Chhuri P.16 was witnessed by Muhammad Wazir P.W.7, who as stated above, is closely related to the deceased. The recovery was effected from an open place accessible to others. The Chhuri was not found buried in the earth. According to the recovery memo. Exh.P.L. it was lying hidden by the side of a piece of wood near the Chhapar. This Chhapar was owned and possessed by Ghulam Rasul, father of Manzoor Ahmad accused. The recovery was witnessed only by two interested witnesses. Even Malik Muhammad Bakhsh, Councilor was not present at that time. Muhammad Wazir P.W. was resident of Chiniot. Haji Ibrahim P.W. was resident of Laliani. Both these places were many miles away from the place of recovery. No one from the locality was associated in the recovery proceedings. I am, therefore, of the view that prosecution has failed to prove that Chhuri P.16 was recovered at the instance of Manzoor Ahmad accused or that the same was in his exclusive possession.
According to the prosecution evidence the occurrence allegedly took place at Sehriwela on 28‑11‑1981. It is stated by Muhammad Wazir P.W. that he alongwith Haji Ibrahim had come to see his sister Mst. Waziran at about sunset time on 28‑11‑1981. The house was found locked. They both searched for Mst. Waziran. In the meanwhile Malik Muhammad Bakhsh, Councilor also came there. The two accused also reached there after a shortwhile and confessed before them. This story seems highly improbable. The case was registered at 11 p. m. at the police station about one mile from the place of occurrence. The alleged extra‑judicial confession was made by Manzoor Ahmad at about evening time. There is no explanation as to why the F.I.R. was not recorded immediately after the said extra‑judicial confession by the accused. The accused were not taken to the police. Secondly, the occurrence took place at about Sehriwela but surprisingly neither Ghulam Rasul husband of Mst. Waziran nor anyone else came to know of this occurrence nor any report was earlier lodged with the police. According to the F.I.R. as well as the statements of Malik Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.6 and Wazir P.W.7 only Manzoor Ahmad accused made detailed confession before them while Shabbir accused only supported his co‑accused Manzoor Ahmad and begged to be excused. According to the prosecution evidence Wazir P.W.7 and Malik Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.6 were present near the place of occurrence when both the accused voluntarily came there at odd hours of the evening and made confession before them. There was no compulsion for the accused to appear before these witnesses for confession. This conduct of the two accused was also not natural. It is in evidence that mother of Manzoor Ahmad accused was divorced by Ghulam Rasul and that she was residing in Bhalwal during the days of occurrence. The accused could have gone straight to Bhalwal instead of remaining in Sargodha and then appearing before these witnesses for extra‑judicial confession. Wazir P.W. is related to the deceased. Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.6 is a Councilor and as such a person in authority. I am, therefore, not inclined to rely on the evidence of extra‑judicial confession furnished by these two witnesses. It is in evidence that the accused were arrested on 29‑11‑1981. No incriminating recovery was effected from Shabbir accused. Even his clothes were not found stained with blood. The recovery of Chhuri P.16 was effected on 3‑12‑1981. If Manzoor Ahmad had confessed his guilt before these witnesses on 28‑11‑1981, he must also have disclosed the presence of Chhuri near the Chappar at that very moment. The police arrested the accused after about 2 hours of the registration of the case, but in spite of that the recovery was effected after about 5 days of the arrest. It was explained that Ghulam Rasul father of Manzoor Ahmad had reached the place of occurrence. He misled the accused who therefore, agreed to lead to the recovery of the Chhuri many days after his arrest. This evidence leads to the conclusion firstly that Ghulam Rasul father of Manzoor Ahmad accused and husband of Mst. Waziran deceased did not support the prosecution case, and secondly, that the recovery of Chhuri P.16 was fabricated at a later stage. I am, therefore, of the view that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Muhammad Bakhsh P.W.6 and Wazir P.W.7. It appears that when Ghulam Rasul husband of Mst. Waziran refused to become complainant against the present appellants, Wazir, Haji Ibrahim and Muhammad Bakhsh P.W. were brought in as false witnesses.
The prosecution has also failed to prove motive against the accused. The best evidence could have been furnished by Ghulam Rasul husband of Mst. Waziran who was not examined as prosecution witness during trial.
In view of the above discussion I find that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellants. This appeal is accepted. The conviction and sentence of Manzoor Ahmad and Shabbir accused is set aside. They are acquitted. They shall be released from prison forthwith if not required in any other case.
S.G.D./M‑641/L Appeal allowed.