SHAHZAD AHMED Versus THE STATE

On 18‑11‑1998 at about 4 p.m. Shazia was taken to Poly Clinic (a private hospital) having burn injuries. After treatment there she was shifted to Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, where she was treated and cured. About three and half months after that incident she (Shazia) appeared at New Karachi Police Station on 8‑3‑1999 and lodged F.I.R. No.81 of 1999 against her husband Shahzad alleging substantially that she used to quarrel with her husband for having illicit connection with Shamim whom he had kept at their residence. That on 8‑11‑1998 at about 4 p.m. her husband poured kerosene oil upon her and shown torch. She raised cries in response whereof Aslam came in the house scaling over the wall and found her burning. Aslam then opened the door of the house whereafter the other neighbours having collected there on cries also entered the house and witnessed the happening. After registration of the case the investigation was conducted and finally Shahzad was sent for trial.

2. During trial prosecution examined five witnesses namely Shazia P. W .1, Muhammad Saleem P. W .2, Azam Ali P. W .3, Muhammad Aslam P.W.4 and A.S.‑I Abdul Majeed P.W.5. In his statement under section 342, Shahzad Ahmed denied prosecution allegation. He did not examined under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Also no witness was examined by him in defence. By judgment, dated 15‑8‑2002, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, Central convicted Shahzad Ahmed awarding him sentence to suffer R.I. for five years with fine of Rs.30,000 in default of payment of find to suffer six months' R.I. further. It was also ordered that the fine if recovered be paid to the victim. The conviction and the sentence have been assailed through resent appellant.

3. Appellant's learned Advocate contended that the prosecution case is fails and the evidence brought on record by prosecution is not of such standard which could be made basis for the conviction. He contended that it is evident that not only the F.I.R. was after thought and delayed but it has come in evidence that the first person who entered the house was P. W. Aslam and he witnesses that accused Shahzad had put blanket upon the complainant. Further that doctor has deposed that the lady Shazia had stated before them that she was burnt accidentally while preparing tea. It was also argued that in presence of these facts and circumstances the evidence of P.W. Azam Ali and Saleem and Shazia cannot be believed against the appellant.

4. The learned State Counsel Mr. Fazal‑ur‑Rehman Awan conceded to the contentions of the learned Advocate, representing the appellant and did not defend the conviction.

5. No doubt complainant Shazia has deposed that due to frequent quarrels between her and her husband over his illicit connections with Shamim he (her husband) set her on fire after pouring kerosene oil upon her but her evidence cannot be believed safely in the light of the evidence of Doctor Moula Bakhsh and P.Ws. Aslam and Azam Ali.

6. Dr. Moula Bakhsh was the owner and Incharge of the private hospital (Poly Clinic) where the injured lady was taken immediately after the incident. He has deposed that the lady stated before him that she was burnt accidentally. That she never accused her husband burning her. P.W. Aslam who timely entered the house first of all by scaling over the wall has deposed that when he entered the house the appellant was found to have put blanket upon Shazia. Nothing in his evidence that Shazia alleged against her husband that he had set her on fire. P.W. Azam Ali also does not allege that Shazia had alleged that her husband had set her on fire. His evidence only shows that Shahzad had not made attempts to extinguish the fire before his entry in the house which statement is in conflict with the evidence of P.W. Aslam who deposed that when he entered the house Shahzad had already put blanket upon Shazia. The other evidence is of P.W. Saleem. Although he claimed that the husband of his aunt told him that Shazia had been burnt by her husband. He also deposed that Shazia had told him that Shahzad had burnt her but neither Azam nor Shazia did state in their respective depositions that they had told him and P. W. Saleem. The prosecution evidence discussed above is not of such standard which could be made basis for the conviction.

7. In view of above it will be highly unsafe to pass the conviction upon the evidence on record. The appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. Therefore, his conviction cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside. Consequently, the appeal stands accepted. The appellant if in custody be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.

H.B.T./S‑15/K Appeal accepted.