AGHA ALI HYDER, J.---The appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, for an offence under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced to death. He was also ordered to pay compensa--tion in the sum of Rs. 5,000. The convict has filed an appeal and there is a reference duly made under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal and the reference will be disposed of by this judgment.
The prosecution story is that approximately a year before the incident, Shrimati Hipy came to be married to the appellant. In exchange a first cousin of the appellant was to be married to the brother of Kist. Hipy. However, the promise was being evaded. Roorho, the father of Mst. Hipy was unhappy at this turn of events. A month before the incident, he had brought her to his house for a temporary stay, but once she was there, he had refused to send her back, unless the promise was honoured. Some five days before the incident, the appellant had gone to his father-in-law's place and was apprised of these developments. He was however allowed to stay and was also provided employment at the farm, where Roorho was working. The appellant is stated to have persuaded his wife to go back to their home, but she declined to do so, without the express consent of her father.
The appellant was exasperated, and having failed in his attempt, on the evening of 15th of March, 1975, killed her with a hatchet blow, while she had gone to fetch water from a nearby watercourse.
3. Shortly thereafter Roorho had proceeded to the Hatri Police Outpost, and lodged the report. S. I.
Ghulam Muhammad sent a copy of the same to Tando Jam Police Station and proceeded to the vardat and prepared the mashirnama and inquest report. Later enquiry was made from a number of witnesses. The appellant came to be arrested on 19-3-1975. The shirt was found to be blood- stained and came to be secured and sealed. The appellant had then taken the Police Party and produced a blood-stained hatchet. The next day, he was produced before the Resident Magistrate, Tando Bago at Hyderabad, and his judicial confession was recorded. After due investigation, the case was challaned in Court.
4. The appellant in his statement at the trial, admitted that in return for his marriage his cousin sister was to be given in marriage to Audho his wife's brother and that there was a breach of the promise. His wife had been taken away by her father and detained for about six weeks. He had gone to bring her back and had come to suspect her fidelity. He admonished her, to be of good behaviour, but she was defiant and refused to discontinue her intimacy with her paramour, by the name of Hashim Jhakro. On the evening in question, he had surprised her in a compromising position with him, in the jungle, near the watercourse. Hashim had made good his escape, but Hipy was still lying on the ground He lost control over his senses and struck her with the hatchet he was carrying. Two days later he had surrendered before the Police and had also made the judicial confession. The other allegations were denied.
5. The autopsy was held by Dr. Muhammad Siddiq. He had found only one hatchet injury on the neck, but it was inflicted with such ferocity that the neck remained attached to the body, with only a flap of skin. The death was instantaneous.
6. All that remains to be examined therefore is, as to under what circumstances, Mst. Hipy met her end ?
The incident is alleged to have been witnessed by P. W. Shrimati Rami, P. W. Ismail and Shrimati Baghi. Rami is the daughter-in-law of Roorho. They are stated to have accompanied the deceased to the watercourse to fetch water. Ismail was in the fields nearby, Shrimati Baghi has not been examined. Shrimati Rami has stated that while they were at the watercourse, the appellant had appeared with a hatchet in hand. He had asked his wife to accompany him to his village. The latter had told him to get permission from her father first. Hearing this, the appellant had given her a hatchet blow on the neck and she lay prostrate on the ground, dying within moments. Their cries had attracted Ismail and later Manzoor and Roorho. Seeing them the appellant had fled away. She mentions that Hipy was brought to their house about two months earlier and from the time of his arrival, the appellant was persuading her to go back with him, but all in vain. She denied the suggestion that Hipy was on terms of illicit intimacy with Hashim Jhakro, or that she was not with her, at the time she was given the fatal blow. Ismail does not mention any talk. After all he was at some distance but he makes out the presence of the deceased with her sister-in-law and mother- in-law. P. W. Manzoor had arrived a little later, and found the deceased lying sprawled on the ground. He vouchsafes the presence of Rami, Baghi, Ismail and Roorbo near the dead body ; it was they who had furnished him the details.
7. It will be proper to examine the stand of the appellant in juxtaposition with their testimony. The earliest version is, as furnished by him in the judicial confession. The only grievance of the appellant is that the confession, which was voluntarily made by him, had not been read out to him, after it had been recorded by Mr. Manaklal. It is rather naive. His suspicions against Hashim also find place in his statement at the trial. The difference is only, that the compromising position was introduced, and that is patently an afterthought. Both the versions show that he had given up hopes of winning back his wife; as the stipulation regarding the exchange marriage was not being honoured and therefore Roorho was feeling cheated. The twin motives of murder, in the judicial confession are not out of place. The allegation of infidelity, however is nothing but an embellishment and has been spun out, to save the neck. This part of his stand has just to be rejected. I have no hesitation in holding, that the narration of events as given by Mst. Rami, which finds due support from Ismail and Manzoor, depicts the truth, and Shrimati Hipy was butchered because she was not preparrd to leave her parent's house, as suggested by the appellant.
8. It was a deliberate and fiendish murder. Mr. Nooruddin Contended that the extreme penalty was not called for as only one injury was inflicted. It was clear to the appellant that the task was over, and any further injury was just superfluous. The neck stood almost severed. The sentence under the circumstances is not open to any exception.
As a result the reference is accepted, the death sentence is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.