' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.-Manzoor Hussain (30) and Ramzan (25) were tried under section 302/34, P. P. C. By the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, for causing murder of Islam, Mst. Kaniz and Mst. Khanan, son, daughter and wife, respectively, of Allah Ditta, the complainant, in the area of village Pir Abdur Rehman, Police Station Garh Maharaja, District Jhang. The trial Judge vide his judgment dated 30-4-1974, acquitted Ramzan, but convicted Manzoor Hussain under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 2,000, or in default to suffer R. I.
For two years. It was also directed that the amount of fine, if recovered, would be paid to the heirs of the deceased.
2. Manzoor Hussain assailed the order of his conviction by means of this appeal, whereas suo motu notice was issued by a learned Judge of this Court to him as to why his sentence be not enhanced.
Similarly, notice was also issued to Ramzan as to why his acquittal be not set aside. Hence the matter had come up before this Division Bench, and he be convicted. Consequently, two Revision Petitions Nos, 125 and 126 of 1976 were registered against them. The appeal and the connected revision petitions are being disposed of by this judgment.
3. The prosecution case, as disclosed by Allah Ditta (P. W. 16) in his statement (Exh. P. A.) lodged by him at Police Post Ahmadpur Sial, on 29-8-1971 at 6-30 a.m. Is as follows : ' On the night between 28th and 29th August, 1971, Allah Ditta, his daughters Mst. Kaniz and Mst. Said Mai, his son Islam and his wife Mst. Khanan were sleeping in the haveli of their house, A lantern was also burning in the house. On a sudden noise, the complainant and his daughter Mst. Said Mai woke up and found present Manzoor Hussain appellant, armed with a knife, and Ramzan respondent, armed with a chhuri. Ramzan respondent opened the attack and gave a chhuri blow to Islam which landed on his neck and china resulting in his instantaneous death. Manzoor Hussain inflicted successive knife injuries to Mst. Kaniz on her neck and right cheek. Mst. Khanan raised alarm and she was given knife Now on her neck by Manzoor Hussain appellant. Both the injured also died on the spot. Ahmad and Ramzan P. Ws. Reached there on hearing the alarm and witnessed the occurrence. The assailants, in the meantime, disappeared, however, leaving their shoes at the spot.
' The motive for the offence was that 15/16 years prior to the occurrence the nikah of Ramzan respondent was performed with Mst. Said Mai, but the latter refused to reside with him. Similarly, Manzoor Hussain appellant was betrothed with Mst.'Kaniz deceased but 7/8 days earlier to the incident she was betrothed to one Ghulam Muhammad son of Imam Bakhsh. The accused, therefore, nursed grudge and committed the murder of three persons, named above.
4. The statement of the complainant was recorded by Safdar Ali, A. S. I. (P. W. 22), and on its basis formal F. I. R. (Exh. P. A/1) was drawn up by Shah Muhammmad, Head Constable (P. W. 3) at 7-30 a.m. On 29-8-1971 at Police Station Garh Maharaja. The said A. S. I. Reached the spot and prepared injury statement of Islam deceased (Exh. P. S.) and inquest report (Exh. P. D.). He also prepared injury statement and inquest report of Mst. Kaniz deceased which are Exh. P. U. And Exh. P. V.
Respectively. Similarly, he prepared injury statement of Mst. Khanan (Exh. P. X.) and her inquest report (Exh. P. Y.). He despatbhed the dead bodies of Islam and Mst. Kaniz to the mortuary, under the escort of Nabi Bakhsh, F. C. While that of Mst. Khanan under the escort of Talib Hussain, F. C. The Investigating Officer secured the blood-stained earth underneath the cot of the deceased. He also took into possession lantern vide memo Exh. P. J. And two pairs of shoes Exhs. P. 2/1-2 and P. 3/1-2 vide memo Exh. P. K.
5. On 30th August, 1971, Dr. Waseem Akhtar performed post-mortem examinations. He noticed on the dead body of Islam an incised wound 3" x I" on the right side mandible extending to the right side of neck. The underlying mandible bone was cut on the right side and fractured in the middle.
He also found an incised wound x le' x 34" on the left side of the neck meeting injury No,
1. All the underlying muscles, and blood vessels were cut. Trachea and oesphagus were also cut. Vertebra and the underlying spinal cord was also cut through and through. The injuries were declared ante- mortem. The death, according to the doctor, was the result of shock and haemorrhage occurring on account of the cut of vertebra column, spinal cord, trachea and oesophagus, which, he opined, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. The post-mortem of Mst. Kaniz deceased revealed the following injuries on her person :-
(1) An incised wound 4-1/2" x 21" x 31" on the right side of upper part of neck. All the muscles and blood vessels of right side of neck were cut. Third cervical vertebra and the underlying spinal cord were completely cut.
(2) An incised wound 3i" x 14" x 11" on the right mandible, the underlying mandible bone was cut.
' The Doctor declared injury No, 1 sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries were held antemortem and caused by sharp-edged weapon.
7. Similarly Mst. Khanan deceased had on her body the following injury :- ' An incised wound 74" x 34" x if on the left side of the neck in the lower part, extending from the side of neck to the back of shoulder and neck. All the muscles, blood vessels of left side of neck were cut.
Fifth and sixth inter vertebral cervical disc was partially cut and the underlying spinal cord was also partially cut.
' The injury was found to be antemortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
8. Muhammad. Sadiq, A. S. I., partly investigated this case. He arrested the accused on 30th December, 1971. Manzoor Hussain, while in custody, led to the recovery of blood-stained knife (Exh.
P. 4) from a sand-mound which was taken into possession vide memo Exh. P. B. Muhammad Ramzan respondent, while in custody, got recovered blood-stained chhuri (Exh. P. 5) which was also taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. C. However, Muhammad Sadiq, A. S. I., died before the commencement of the trial.
9. The Serologist report (EWe Exh. P. A. G.) the knife and chhuri recovered at the instance of the accused to be stained with human blood.
10. The accused pleaded not guilty. Manzoor Hussain appellant, in his examination under section 342, Cr. P. C., stated that he was involved in the case on account of party faction. Ramzan respondent stated that Mst. Said Mai was his legally wedded wife. He asked for her restitution, whereas she demanded divorce from him. He asserted that on account of that enmity he was falsely implicated in the case. The accused, however, led no evidence in defence.
11. The prosecution case rests on the ocular evidence, the medical evidence and the evidence of motive and recoveries.
12. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the evidence of recoveries, held the participation of Ramzan respondent in the crime doubtful and acquitted him, but considered the prosecution evidence consistent and reliable as regards the involvement of Manzoor Hussain appellant and convicted and sentenced him, as aforementioned.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was night occurrence and the assailants escaped unnoticed. He also argued that the evidence led by the prosecution was interested and no valid order of conviction could, therefore, be passed in this case.
14. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State opposing the appeal, submitted that it was a case of clear conviction and that the quantum of sentence imposed upon Manzoor Hussain appellant was inadequate and not in accord with the gravity of the offence committed by him. He also vehemently objected to the order of the acquittal of Ramzan respondent.
15. The admitted facts are that Manzoor Hussain appellant is the son of the complainant's sister, while Ramzan respondent is the son of his nephew. Imam Bakhsh (P. W. 11) is the brother of Mst.
Khanan deceased and father of Ghulam Muhammad, with whom Mst. Kaniz deceased was betrothed seven or eight days prior to the occurrence.
16. The ocular version is furnished, by Allah Ditta (the complainant), Mst. Said Mai (P. W. 17), Ahmad and Ramzan P. Ws. Who claimed to be the neighbours of the deceased.
17. Allah Ditta (P. W. 16) stated that he had betrothed Mst. Kaniz Fatima. Six months prior to the occurrence, with Manzoor Hussain appellant, but thereafter he betrothed her with Ghulam Muhammad son of Imam Bakhsh. This version of the complainant finds support from the evidence of Mst. Said Mai (P. W. 17) and Imam Bakhsh (P. W. 11). Manzoor Hussain appellant himself, in his statement before the committing Magistrate, admitted his betrothal with Mst. Kaniz Fatima deceased and his grievance on her subsequent betrothal with Ghulam Muhammad, but repudiated his statement on this point 'at the trial. There is no reason to discard the testimony of the P. Ws. In this behalf, particularly when it was not seriously contested by the appellant. The motive, therefore, for the commission of the offence by the appellant was established. Similarly, Ramzan accused also admitted before the Committing Magistrate that 15/16 years prior to the occurrence his Nikah was performed with Mst. Said Mai, but she did not agree to live with him, for which he nourished grudge, but, however, he denied this at the trial.
18. Allah Ditta and his daughter Mst. Said Mai deposed that on the fateful night they were sleeping in the haveli of their house. They saw Manzoor Hussain appellant, armed with 'knife, and Ramzan respondent, armed with chhuri, inflicting fatal injuries to the deceased. The evidence of these P. Ws.
Was fully corroborated by Muhammad Ramzan (P. W. 19) who resided opposite to their house and reached the scene of occurrence promptly at the relevant time. The presence of Mst. Said Mai and her father Allah Ditta, at the place of occurrence, cannot be doubted, because they were inhabitants of the same house. The medical evidence also supports the ocular version that all the three deceased died on account of the sharp-edged weapon injuries suffered by them at the hands of the accused.
19. After careful examination of the record we find that the reasons advanced by the learned trial Judge, distinguishing the case of Ramzan accused from that of Manzoor Hussain appellant, are not without force. Undoubtedly, Ramzan respondent nourished grudge against Mst. Said Mai who did not reside with him as his wife, and instead demanded divorce. Under the normal circumstances he could not have spared her had he been participant in the crime. There is no evidence that she was assaulted, dragged or hurt by the accused. Furthermore, the admission of Mst. Said Mai to the effect that Ramzan respondent never visited her house ear Tier finds support from the statement of Ramzan (P. W. 19). It is, therefore, apparent that her contradictory statement that he had visited the house of the complainant a week earlier despite strained relations cannot be relied. Ramzan P. W.
Had made a categorical statement that he did not see Ramzan respondent in the house of the deceased at any time before the occurrence.
20. The recovery of chhuri (Exh. P. 5) allegedly made at the instance of Ramzan respondent on 30- 12-1971, after a lapse of over five months, from a sand-dune, reported to be stained with human blood and not witnessed by impartial or respectable persons of the locality, could hardly provide adequate corroboration to the statement of Allah Ditta (P. W. 16). Similarly, the recovery of shoes from the spot, allegedly left by Ramzan respondent, was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court.
Ramzan (P. W. 14), a resident of a place at a distance of 20/26 miles from the place of occurrence, admitted that the accused had never visited him nor he visited them. In these circumstances it is not safe to rely on his.Testimony to the effect that the accused came to him, particularly when he did not specify the object of their visit to him. The shoes were found lying in a line near the eastern corner of the house, as stated by Abdus Sattar (P. W. 10), and found no mention in the inquest report prepared by Safdar Ali, A. S. I. (P. W. 22), which further justifies rejection of this piece of evidence.
21. In this case the State has not appealed against the acquittal of Ramzan respondent. We have considered the reasoning advanced by the learned trial Judge in this case, with reference to evidence on the record, and find that the appreciation of evidence is neither speculative nor artificial. We are, therefore, not persuaded to interfere in the order of his acquittal passed by the trial Court. Consequently Revision Petition No, 126 of 1976 is dismissed.
22. So far as Manzoor Hussain appellant is concerned, we find that the prosecution has abundantly established his guilt in the commission of the crime. Allah Ditta (P. W. 16) and his daughter Mst. Said Mai P. W. Are natural witnesses, being inmates of the house. Their presence in the Haveli at the time of incident cannot be doubted. The credibility of their evidence could not be shaken in the cross- examination. Their mere relationship with the deceased could not impair the veracity of the eyewitness account of the incident, faithfully given by them. Their evidence inspires confidence and finds sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence and the statement of Muhammad Ramzan (P. W. 19), who was independent witness, residing near the place of occurrence. The appellant had motive to kill Mst. Kaniz deceased the girl earlier betrothed with him, and Mst.
Khanan, her mother, .Who intervened and raised alarm in the course of dastardly action. The complainant could not have falsely substituated him for the real culprit, because of his relationship with the former. He was named in the F.
1. R., promptly lodged by the complainant, and his role in the heinous crime described. It has, in our opinion, been established beyond reasonable doubt that, the fatal injuries suffered by the deceased, Mst. Kaniz and Mst. Khanan, were caused by Manzoor Hussain appellant. So far as he is concerned, therefore, the offence that has been brought home is clearly one under section 302, P.
P. C. The order of the trial Court convicting the appellant under section 302, P. P. C. Is. Therefore, maintained.
23. We are, however, constrained to observe that the learned trial Court erred in holding the instant case to be of lesser penalty. It is difficult for us to sponsor the view that mere change in the mind of a father to betroth her daughter with some suitable person would carry least justification for brutal triple murder in a family. We are, therefore, of the view that mere lapse of time cannot be an extenuating factor in favour of the appellant, in the circumstances of this case. We, therefore, sentence him to normal penalty of death. He shall be hanged by the neck till he is pronounced dead.
24. However, we do not award any compensation to the heirs of the deceased because the appellant, who had filed this appeal through jail, was allowed to be represented by a counsel at state expense, not only before this Court but also at the trial.
25. In the result the appeal is dismissed and the revision petition for the enhancement of sentence is accepted.