ABDUL HAYEEH KURESHI, J.---Ramzan son of Sulleman was tried on a charge of murder by the 11Ird Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, and on being found guilty, was by a judgment dated 18-4- 1977 sentenced to death. He fled an appeal from the Jail in which he requested for personal hearing. The Additional Sessions Judge has also submitted the case to the High Court for confirmation of the sentence of death. Both the Jail appeal from the appellant Ramzan and confirmation case have been heard together. The appellant was called from the Jail and he has been heard in person. He has stated that he is innocent and justice may be done to him. We have heard Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, Advocate engaged for the appellant at the State expenses and Mr. Ghulam Ali Agha for the State. On conclusion of the hearing on 23-8-1978, we had by a short order dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence of death and reasons for such order presently follow.
2. The deceased Mst. Jamal Khatoon is the real sister of appellant Ramzan. She was married to one Usman Machhi, but it seems that she was enticed by Gul Muhammad alias Gulo some 30 years back. Gul Muhammad subsequently married her. Mst. Jamal Khatoon had three daughters from the said Usman Machhi, namely, Mst. Sahiban, Mst. Fatima and Mst. Samani. The evidence discloses that Mst. Fatima and ; Mst. Sahiban were returned to their father Usman, while Mst.
Samani continued to live with Mst. Jamal Khatoon and her husband Gulo. Mst. Samani has been betrothed to one Haji a number of years back and in exchange for her hand the said Haji had given his sister in marriage to Allah Jurio, the brother of the accused. Sometime proximate to the date of commission of this offence, the appellant Ramzan together with his brothers, Allah Jurio and Dhani Parto had been pressing upon Mst. Jamal Khatoon the deceased and her husband to permit them to get Mst. Samara married to some person in order to obtain a girl in exchange for marriage of appellant Ramzan. Such proposal was repelled by the deceased and Guloo. On the morning of 6- 11-1971, in the early morning hours, the appellant together with his brothers came to the house of the deceased Mst. Jamal Khatoon and her husband and once again pressed their proposal only to be declined on the ground that Mst. Samani was already engaged to Haji. On this Allah Jurio and Dhani Parto went away but appellant Ramzan continued to remain in the house of the deceased.
Guloo, the husband of the deceased also left for Hyderabad in the morning hours. It is at about 8 or 9-00 a.m. That the deceased Mst. Jamal Khatoon together with her daughter Mst. Samani and another small daughter Marvi, age three years, left for the cotton field in Chokri No. 9 of Rano Forest in Deh Kunnar, Taluka Hala. While the deceased was working in the field the appellant who was hiding in the bushes emerged and saying that h would not leave the deceased alive as besides declining to give the hand o Mst. Samani for arranging his marriage, she had also disgraced the family by elopement with Guloo. So saying he gave her hatchet blows which caused instantaneous death of Mst. Jamal Khatoon. The scene was witnessed by Mst. Samani and both Mst. Samani and Marvi raised cries which attracted Dinoo a cousin of Guloo who was nearby, Dinoo, however, saw only one hatchet blow being given but the entire transaction anterior to the giving of hatchet blows was narrated by Mst. Samani to Dinoo. The time then was about 10-30 a.m. And by 11-00 a.m. Dino reached the village and informed about the death of Mst. Jamal Khatoon to Gul Hassan complainant, who is the brother of Guloo. He also informed him what had been disclosed to him by Mst. Samani in regard to what the appellant had said before causing the blows. Both Dino and Gul Hassan came to the scene of offence. Gul Hassan waited for 4 or 5 so that his brother Gul Muhammad who was the husband of Mst. Jamal Khatoon may return from Hyderabad but since Gul Muhammad did not return until about 3 or 4-00 p.m. Gul Hassan proceeded to Saeedabad Police Station at a distance of three miles from the scene of occurrence and lodged the report which was recorded by A. S. I. Ali Muhammad. This report is a fairly detailed document in which Gul Hassan disclosed of the facts of the case including the motive for the crime, and the information that he received from Dinoo and Mst. Samani. A. S. I. Ali Muhammad came to the scene and sent the dead body for post-mortem, prepared mashirnama of the scene and proceeded to record the statements of witnesses. The appellant, however, was not arrested arid there is surprisingly nothing on the record to show whether the Police Officer made any serious effort to arrest the appellant and even the witnesses do not state as to where the appellant had gone. Ultimately the appellant was arrested by S. I. P. Gul Muhammad on 31-1-1972, while the was at Barocha Bagh Bus Stand.
Nothing incriminating was recovered from the appellant.
3. It would seem that the prosecution case against the appellant rested on the occular testimony of Mst. Samani and Dinoo together with the corroboration by complainant Gul Hassan and Hakim to whom Mst. Samani in the first instance and Dinoo later gave all the facts of the case. Motive in this case has been deposed by Mst. Samani, Dinoo and Gul Hassan. All these witnesses have been examined. Dinoo however died before the case came up for hearing in the Court of Session and his evidence after all compliance with the requirements of section 33 of the Evidence Act has been brought on the record in the Sessions Court. Dr. Ghulam Mustafa has furnished medical evidence to show that the deceased suffered 6 injuries five of which were incised and the sixth was a fracture. The injuries were mostly on the head and the neck. Both the Police Officers Ali Muhammad and Gul Muhammad have been examined. They have not deposed in regard to abscondence of the appellant. The remaining evidence is of the corpse bearer, Tapedar and other formal witnesses.
The appellant examined no witness in his defence and in his statement he has denied the entire prosecution case and stated that he had been implicated for the reasons of enmity of Guloo.
During cross-examin--ation some suggestions had been made to the witnesses to indicate that some other person who may have a grievance against Mst. Jamal Khatoon or her husband Guloo may have committed murder but all such suggestions have been repelled.
4. The prosecution case as already stated mainly depends on the evidence of Mst. Samani and Dinoo. The appellant is the maternal uncle of Mst. Samani and Dinoo is cousin of the complainant Gul Hassan and therefore, related, though distantly to the appellant. Mst. Samani being an unmarried girl had accompanied her mother to the cotton field. It is very usual in the interior of Sind for the mothers to carry or take their children to the fields with them when they go to work both for the purpose of protecting the child as well as for obtaining their help. Mst. Samani has deposed to what had transpired between deceased and her husband on the one hand and appellant and his two brothers on the other when the latter had come to seek the hand of Mst. Samani for being given in marriage to a person in order to arrange the marriage of the appellant. Mst. Samani had seen the entire incident and has given convincing and vivid description of all the circumstances.
She has stated that she raised cries and to that extent even Dinoo has supported her by stating that he heard the cries and therefore went towards the scene of offence. Dinoo also saw .At least one hatchet blow being given. The evidence of Mst, Samani is also corroborated. By the evidence of complainant Gul Hassan as well as P. W. Hakim who .Is the son-in-law of the deceased and had come to the scene after being informed about the death of the deceased. Both Gul Hassan and Hakim have stated that Mst. Samani had related to them the circum--stances under which the deceased was done to death. All these witnesses have given consistent evidence in regard to what Mst. Samani told them. Each one of these witnesses has stated that Mst. Samani was available on the scene. In these circumstances we are left in no doubt that Mst. Samani was available at the scene of occurrence and saw the incident which she correctly described to the witnesses. P. W.
Dinoo has also given convincing evidence which is not open to any doubt. He has stated that on the day in question he had gone to Khamiso Village for engaging labour to pick the cotton pods and when he returned, he heard cries and rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw the appellant giving hatchet blows to the deceased. He -has also deposed in regard to what he learnt from Mst. Samani.
5. On a close reading of the evidence of the witnesses we are left in no doubt whatsoever that each one of the eye-witnesses and corroborating witnesses has given a correct version of the incident.
No ostensible reason f appears for their falsely implicating the appellant who as stated above is closely related to the complainant and prosecution witnesses.
6. The ocular evidence is corroborated by the evidence that had been furnished on the point of motive. Each one of the witnesses has spoken about the motive and the probability of this motive having led the appellant to commit this crime is beyond question. The inability of the deceased and her husband Guloo to accede to the demand of the appellant and his brothers is also understandable because Mst. Samani was already engaged to Haji. Such refusal on the part of his sister and her husband had given a cause for grievance and a rmotive for murder to the appellant.
7. The first information report in this case was no doubt delayed by six hours but a very cogent explanation is available on the record. Gul Hassan had waited for his brother Guloo to return from Hyderabad so that the report may be lodged after his return. Guloo however did not return until the evening and Gul Hassan did not want to delay the first information report any longer so that he proceeded to the police station and lodged the report. The explanation for delay in lodging the report finds a place in the first information report also.
8. The point in regard to sentence has also been considered by us. The appellant acted in a most cruel manner and in regard to refusal of Mst. Jamal Khatoon to allow the appellant and his brothers to get her daughter married was also understandable as the girl was already engaged. B In fact the appellant and his brothers were not justified in making such demand. We therefore see no extenuating circumstances to entitle the appellant to lesser penalty.