Muhammad Arif appellant was tried for the murder of his wife Mst. Sairan by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur, who convicted him under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I for one year. The fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid of heirs of the deceased vide judgment dated 17th April, 1976.
2. According to the prosecution Saddar Din (P. W. 10) and hi; wife Imam Bibi (parents of the deceased) had gone to the house of the appellant on 22nd March, .1974. They stayed there over night since there used to be quarrel between the spouses. The appellant suspected his wife of fidelity. On earlier occasions there had been quarrel, beating and the girl had to come to the house of her parents but was made to go on the intervention of notables of the area. Both the father and the mother went to sleep outside. Mst. Sairan had gone to her Kotha wherein the appellant also entered later in the night. They alleged to have heard the shrieks of their daughter and found the appellant sitting on her chest throttling her neck by chaddar (F. 1), which was recovered vide Memo. Exh. P. C. From the appellant. The Memo was attested by Umar Din (P. W. 9) and Amir Muhammad. Mst. Imam Bibi, mother of the deceased is niece of Umar Din. Fazal Din (P. W. 8) is said to have met Muhammad Arif at 2-30 a. m. On his way when Fazal Din was proceeding from his village to the house of his daughter who is married in village Sardar Faiz Muhammad. He admitted in cross-examination that it was not moon--lit night. He deposed that he did not remember to have stated before the C. M. That there was shop next to the house of Arif (confronted, so recorded). He also said that he was not aware whether he said before the C. M. That there was a window between the house of Arif and any shop next to it. He was confronted with his statement wherein it was found so recorded. Umar Din (P W. 9) is a Zamindar of Sodi Narain Singhwala, Tehsil Chunian. He is a witness of extra-judicial confession and recovery of chaddar (P. 1). He admitted that the accused did not state before him that he murdered Mst. Sairan due to her loose character.
When confronted with his statement before the C. M. It was so recorded. He admitted that he was arrested in a case under Excise Act but was bailed out. He admitted that he does not own any land.
He deposed that he did not mention about the confession of Muhammad Arif before the Lambardar or any other person.
3. The prosecution story falls to the ground by the statement of Muhammad Tufail (P. W. 2) who admitted in cross-examination that Bhara is son of paternal uncle of Mst. Sairan deceased. He stated that he was not aware that 2/3 months before the occurrence Bhara and Mst. Sairan attended the marriage in village Qila Natha Singh. She had illicit relations with Bhara. He admitted, however that Kothi of Sardar Muhammad Ali was under construction when the occurrence took place. This Kothi is at a distance of two furlongs from Kot Sardar Faiz Muhammad. Arif was employed by Sardar Muhammad Ali to look after his Kothi. The appellant used to sleep in the said Kothi at night. Hakim Ali brother of the deceased was serving with him in those days and he came to know about the murder. Of Mst. Sairan at 8 a. m. He sent Hakim Ali to enquire about the occurrence and sent message to the parents of the deceased about her murder. He along with Sadar Din and Imam Bibi reached the dead body after one hour of the occurrence. He also admitted that there is a shop of Khalid next to the Kotha with a window in-between where Mst.
Sairan was lying. In re-examination by the A. P. P, the witness categorically stated that parents of Mst. Sairan did not spend the previous night with Arif accused and accompanied him to the Kotha where the dead body was lying.
4. The appellant denied his guilt before the C. M. But before the learned trial Court he stated that on the night of occurrence he had gone to the Kothi of Muhammad Ali for guarding the same. When he camp back at 3 a. m. He found the deceased in compromising position with Bhara. He could not control himself and was provoked and killed his wife. Thereafter he went to Police Station Chunian and produced himself before the police. . He declined to produce any defence.
This version of the appellant is supported by the statement of Bashir Ahmad (P. W. 4) who stated before the C. M. That the accused himself appeared in the police station but denied having said so at the trial, He was confronted with his statement wherein it was found so recorded.
5. The prosecution version is not worth relying upon. The presence f the eye-witnesses has been contradicted by another prosecution witness The recovery is of no consequence in this case. The existence of window in between the shop and the Kotha of the appellant also supports the version of the appellant.
6. For the foregoing reasons I alter the conviction from section 30 to section 304, Part I, P. P. C. And reduce the sentence to that already undergone by the appellant. He has been in Jail for more than three years after his conviction. He was arrested on 23rd March, 1974 Ever since then he is in Jail.
Applying section 382-B, Cr. P. C. The sentence already undergone comes to more than four years.
This is sufficient t meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is maintained but the imprisonment in default of payment of fine shall be deemed to have rut concurrently. However, if the fine is realised it shall be paid to the parent of Mst. Sairan.