SHAUKAT ALI Versus THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of the complainant's son by administering poisonous pills. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution successfully proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the delayed FIR, material contradictions in the statements of eyewitnesses, lack of corroborative investigative steps, and the plausible alternative hypothesis of suicide arising from the fear of reprimand. The Lahore High Court held that the prosecution's case was fraught with glaring doubts, improbable circumstances, and inconsistent testimonies, making it unsafe to maintain the conviction. Consequently, the court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt, and dismissed the connected revision petition for enhancement of sentence. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution story is inherently improbable, material contradictions exist in ocular evidence, and the possibility of suicide is equally or more plausible, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused resulting in acquittal.
- Whether the benefit of doubt should be extended to an accused where the prosecution's narrative of the crime is inherently improbable?
- Does a delay in lodging the FIR, unexplained by sufficient circumstances, cast serious doubt on the prosecution case?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when material witnesses contradict each other regarding the presence of the complainant and the manner of the crime?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.‑‑‑------- This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1438 of 2000 filed by Shaukat Ali, appellant, who was convicted under section 302, P.P.C, and sentenced to imprisonment for life with further direction to pay Rs.10,000 as compensation, in default three months' S.I. by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot vide judgment, dated 27‑9‑2000. The benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was also extended in favour of the appellant.
Criminal Revision No.762 of 2000 filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence of the convict was admitted to regular hearing and the same shall also be disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Occurrence in this case' had taken place at 9‑30 p.m. on 6‑1‑1998 at a distance of 5 kilometers from Police Station Phalora District Sialkot while the matter was reported to the police by Abdul Aziz through written complaint Exh.P.C. at 9 a.m. the next day at Chowk Phalora to Allah Ditta, S.‑I. and formal F.I.R. Exh,P.C./1 was recorded by Muhammad Nawaz, S.‑I.
3. According to complaint Exh.P.C. at 9‑30 p.m. on 6‑1‑1998, Abdul Aziz, the complainant was present in his house, when Muhammad Imran son of the complainant in the company of Sh. Shaukat Ali came to the house. Imran was vomiting. Sh. Shaukat asked the complainant and his wife that the punishment given to Imran was enough and he will he be given severe punishment in future. Upon this, Imran in the presence of his mother Saleema Bibi and sister Shakeeta Bibi asked his father (complainant) to save his life as Sh. Shaukat had given him in tea four poisonous pills and had also beaten him. The said Shaukat ran away. According to the complainant, Muhammad Sharif had also accompanied Sh. Shaukat when he came to, his house alongwith his son Imran. The complainant called the dispenser but his son expired in the meanwhile.
The motive was a dispute over Rs.150.
3‑A. Allah Ditta (P.W.6) took up the investigation. He reached at the spot, prepared the inquest report (Exh.P.D.), recorded statements of the witnesses, carried out other formal investigation and arrested the accused on 27‑1‑1998.
4. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case, produced 9 witnesses in all. Then the learned D.D.A. tendered in evidence report of the Chemical Examiner and closed the case of the prosecution. Statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. and he also in his defence produced Tahir Maqsood, D.S.P. and Muhammad Sharif as D.Ws.1 and 2. After conclusion of the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant after having read the prosecution evidence and other material available on record submits that Abdul Aziz, father of the deceased had changed his version before the trial Court by staring that Muhammad Sharif had also administered poisonous pills to his deceased son when in the; F.I.R., only Muhammad Sharif was stated to have accompanied the deceased alongwith Sh. Siddique. Further submits that complainant was not present in the house when the deceased was brought and this fact was verified by Mst. Shakila P.W.3 that his father arrived in the house after 1‑1/2 hours after the death of Imran. Adds that it is a case in which the F.I.R. was lodged after due deliberation and consultation because distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 5 kilometers but the matter was reported to the police on the next day at 9 a.m. According to learned counsel, the F.I.R. was recorded after the post‑mortem examination of the deceased because during cross‑examination, P.Ws.2 and 3 stated that they came to know about the motive after post‑mortem examination. Learned counsel submits that there was no reason on the part of the appellant to have committed murder of the deceased on a dispute over Rs.150 only and the story as set up by the prosecution in the written complaint that the accused after administering poisonous pills and giving beating to the deceased himself brought the deceased to his house. Concluding his submissions learned counsel submits that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant and he is entitled to acquittal.
6. Learned counsel for the State submits that story set up by the prosecution with regard to administering poisonous pills to the deceased by the appellant is improbable though the fact of beating to the deceased is proved to some extent. According to the learned counsel, the appellant gave Rs.150 to the deceased to bring some material for preparation of Pakoras but since neither the deceased took the material nor returned the money to the appellant for which a complaint was made before the mother of the deceased, so the deceased under the fear of severe beating at the hands of his father, swallowed poisonous pills and committed the suicide. He does not find himself in a position to support the prosecution story.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record with their able assistance According to, case of the prosecution, occurrence had taken place at 9‑30 p.m. on 6‑1‑1998 while the matter was reported to the police at 9‑10 a.m. on the next day, that is, 7‑1‑1998, with a delay of 12 hours A though distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was 5 kilometers.
The prosecution in order to prove its case produced only two witnesses, namely Abdul Aziz and Mst. Shakila, both father and real sister of the deceased Imran. Mst. Saleema mother of the deceased was given up as being unnecessary. During the course of investigation, the complainant tried to implicate Shahbaz and Rehmat Jogi also as accused, although he has denied this fact before the trial Court but Tahir Maqsood, D.S.P. who was examined as D.W.1 negated version of the complainant about false implication of Shahbaz and Rehmat Jogi. According to complaint lodged by the complainant, when his son Imran was brought to his house, he apart from Siddique accused was also accompanied by Muhammad Sharif but before the trial Court in cross examination he submitted that both Shaukat and Sharif administered poisonous pills to the deceased. He had been taking different stands at different stages.
The police did not recover other pills, did not join with the investigation the shopkeeper from where the appellant purchased the pills as also did not take into possession the utensils in which the tea was administered to the deceased.
Mst. Shakeela real sister of the deceased while appearing as P.W.3 in cross‑examination stated:‑‑
"Neither I nor my mother asked the present accused as to why he had given beatings to Imran. My father came after 1‑1/2 an hours of the arrival of Imran."
This statement of Mst. Shakila negates the presence of the complainant at the house when the deceased was brought. The complainant during the cross‑examination has admitted that his elder son also tried to commit suicide before the present occurrence. In our view, it was also in the mind of the deceased that he would be given severe beating because a complaint was made by the appellant to mother of the deceased that the deceased had neither brought the material for Pakoras nor returned the money and due to the fear of his father, so the possibility of the deceased having committed the suicide cannot be ruled out. Even otherwise, story of the prosecution does not appeal to reason that an accused after giving poisonous pills to a person would himself take the said person to his house and to create evidence against him.
The motive for the murder of the deceased was that the deceased owed Rs.150 to the appellant. During cross‑examination, both P.Ws.2 and 3 father and sister of the deceased admitted that the motive part was told to them by the appellant after post mortem examination of the deceased and arrest of the accused. If this was the position, how the motive could have been stated in the F.I.R. It seems that someone was behind the occurrence, who drafted the complaint and submitted the same to the police. Even the column of duration between the injury and the death has been left blank by the, doctor while time between death and post‑mortem given as 12 to 24 hours also does not fit in with the time of occurrence given by the prosecution.
Even learned counsel for the State does not find himself in a position to defend the impugned judgment.
Having considered the arguments addressed from both the sides and scanning the whole record specially the evidence produced by the prosecution, we are not satisfied that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt rather doubts are glaring on the face of the record. While extending the H benefit of doubt, we accept the appeal filed by the convict appellant, set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against him by the trial Court and acquit him of the charge. The appellant is in jail and he shall be released forthwith, if not required, to be detained in, any other case.
Criminal Revision No.762 of 2000 filed by the complainant is dismissed.
N.H.Q./S‑47/L Appeal accepted.