' KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.-In case F.I.R. No,406, dated 4-8-2003 under sections 302/147/148, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Westridge, Rawalpindi Fareeda Begum, Rashida Begum, Sanjeeda Begum, Farman Bibi and Shehzad Ahmad, accused persons, were challaned to the Court of Session, Rawalpindi. After closure of trial Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi acquitted Fareeda Begum, Rashida Begum, Sanjeeda Begum and Farman Bibi of the charge, whereas Shahzad Ahmad was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with a further direction to pay Rs,50,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased vide judgment, dated 25-11-2004.
2. Shehzad Ahmad, convict, assailed his conviction and sentenced by means of Criminal Appeal No, 603 of 2004. Mst. Saleem Akhtar, complainant, filed Criminal Revision No,240 of 2004 for enhancement of the sentence of Shehzad Ahmad from life imprisonment to death sentence. She also filed Criminal Appeal No,605 of 2004 against acquittal of above said four accused ladies. I propose to dispose of all these matters by this single judgment.
3. The prosecution case set up. In statement Exh.PB/1, the very basis of formal F.I.R., in brief, is that Khalid Mahmood son of Mst. Saleem Akhtar, complainant, resided in a rented house located at city Saddar Road, Rawalpindi; that on 3-8-2003 she along with her son Masood Ahmad reached the house of Khalid Mehmood, deceased, when her daughter in-law and wife of deceased Fareeda Begum proposed to shift the house as it was in a state of disrepair; that Khalid Mahmood dismissed the proposal of his wife upon which they both exchanged hot words; that on the day of occurrence in the morning Khalid Mahmood and his wife Mst. Fareeda Begum got a quarrel over some issue, when she picked up a stone and hurled it directly on her husband stricking his head; that after striking Khalid Mahmood, Mst. Fareeda Begum left for the house of her parents; that Khalid Mahmood followed his wife Fareeda Begum and reached the house of his in-laws; that the complainant and her son Masood Ahmad also reached there; that the complainant's daughter Mst. Shama (wife of Shahzad Ahmad, convict) was also present there at the relevant time; that an altercation took place between Khalid Mahmood, deceased on the one side and accused persons on the other; that Mst. Fareeda Begum picked up a Churri and attacked Khalid Mahmood giving him a Churri blow in the chest followed by another Churri blow by Shahzad Ahmad, which landed on his left flank; that Mst. Rashida Begum, sister-in- law of the deceased, gave a Churri blow, which hit the deceased on left side of his chest; that Mst. Farman Bibi threw a stone, which hit the deceased near his right eye and that Mst. Sanjeeda Begum gave a Churri blow, which landed on the finger of the deceased.
4. Motive for the occurrence was that Mst. Freeda Bibi, accused proposed to vacate the rented house, but her husband opposed her.
5. Khalid Mahmood was removed to the hospital in an injured condition, where he succumbed to his injuries. On 4-8-2003 Dr. Muhammad Imdad, P.W.9, conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body and observed that it was a dead body of young healthy person with eyes closed and mouth semi open; rigor mortis was present; cuts were found on clothes corresponding to the injuries. The post-mortem examiner found the following injuries on the dead body:-
(1) Incised wound (stab) 3 x 2 cm on the left lateral side of left chest 14 cm below from mid clavicular region.
(2) Stab wound 7 x 3 cm on back of abdomen 11 cm on distal to verticular column and 21 cm blow from the axilla.
(3) Stab wound on front side of right chrol measuring 4 x 3 cm 14 cm blow from anterior of clavical and 8 cm inverted to right nipple.
(4) Incised wound 3 x 1 cm on area between right thumb and right index finger muscle deep.
(5) Incised wound 2 x 1/2 cm on posterior aspect of left ring finger muscle deep on distal end.
(6) Lacerated wound 5 x 4 cm on the right forehead 4 cm above from the right eyebrow.
(7) Incised wound 4 x 1 cm on left side of skull 7 c.m. Above from left ear bone exposed.
(8) Multiple contusions on the back of chest averagely 4x1 cm and counting 7 in number.
(9) Right eye ball contused and black.
6. On dissection 5th rib was found fractured. Left pleurae and left lung were found punctured. Under Injury No,2 abdominal cavity was full of blood. Injury No,3 caused damage to right pleurae and lung. Pericardium contained small quantity of blood. Blood vessels were also punctured. Likewise, abdominal walls, peritoneum, small intestine, large intestine, liver and spleen were also found punctured. In the opinion of the Doctor the cause of death in this case was damage to vital organs caused by Injuries Nos.l, 2 and 3, which were also sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Excepting Injuries, Nos. 6 and 9 all the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon.
Probable time between injuries and death was within one hour and between death and postmortem was within six hours. Under his post-mortem report the Doctor confirmed that the deceased suffered death by violence.
7. On 4-8-2003 Jahangir Shah, S.-I., P.W.10, reached DHQ, Hospital, Rawalpindi and recorded statement of Mst. Saleem Akhtar, complainant Exh.PB and dispatched the same to Police Station Westridge, Rawalpindi for registration of a case. He prepared Injury Statement Exh.PE and Inquest Report Exh.PG/1 about the dead-body. He reached the spot and prepared rough site plan Exh.PF. He collected blood-stained earth and made it into sealed parcel by means of memo. Exh.PG.
Thereafter, the investigation was taken up by Abdul Qayyum, S.-I., P.W.Ll. On 2-9-2003 the Investigator arrested Shehzad Ahmad, accused and obtained his physical remand. On 8-9-2003.
Shehzad, accused led to the recovery of Churri P.2 from his residential house, which was seized under memo. Exh.B. After completion of investigation all the accused persons were challaned to the Court on the charge of murder.
8. At trial, the accused persons named above were charged under section 148, P.P.C. For having formed unlawful assembly on 3-8-2003, which resulted in violence and under section 302, P.P.C.
Read with section 149 of the same Code for having committed Qatl-i-Amd of Khalid Mahmood in prosecution of common object of unlawful assembly. The accused persons denied the charge.
9. The prosecution got examined 13 R.Ws. In all. Ghazanfar Ali, P.W.l witnessed the recovery of Churri, P.l at the instance of Fareeda Begum, accused. Muhammad Ishfaq, Constable P.W.2, got post- mortemed the dead body and attested recovery memo, of last worn clothes of the deceased.
Muhammad Gulshan, P.W.3., witnessed the recovery of Churri P.2 at the instance of Shahzad Ahmad, convict. Zafar Ali Shah, S.-I., P.W.4 recorded statement of the complainant Exh.PB on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.PC was drawn up. Muhammad Umar, P.W.5 kept sealed parcels pertaining to this case in Malkhana and handed them over to Sikandar Hayat, constable, P.W. 8 for their onward transmission to concerned Offices. Mst. Saleem Akhtar, complainant, P.W.6 and Mst.
Shama Parveen, P.W.7 furnished ocular account of the incident and also deposed about the motive. Dr. Muhammad Imdad Aasi, P.W.9, proved post-mortem report. Jahangir Ahmad, S.-I., P.W.10 and Abdul Qayyum, S.-I., P.W.Ll., proved their respective investigation. Babar Hussain, constable, P.W. 12; attested the recovery memo. Exh,PG of blood-stained earth. Muhammad Afzal, S.H.O., P.W. 13, recovered Churri from Fareeda Begum, accused vide Memo. Exh.PA.
10. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. All the accused persons denied and dismissed each piece of prosecution evidence put to them. In an answer to a question Shahzad Ahmad, convict, says:- ' "I am innocent, I have committed no offence. It was about 4-15 a.m. On 4-8-2003, I was sleeping in my room with my family members, I heard scream, I get up and switch on the light, light were gone, I opened the door it was raining. I saw the dead-body of Khalid. A Churri was lying near to him in courtyard of our house and my sister Fareeda and mother Farman Bibi were standing there. My mother told us that Farida came to our house and Khalid chased her and entered in the house having a churri in his hand, raised a lalkara that he would kill Farida today. All of a sudden he jumped with Churri towards Farrida, due to slippery condition he fell on the floor and the same churri struck him in his chest, thereafter he again get up and attempted to murder Farida with the same churri, there was scuffle between the spouses and churri again struck to Khalid twice on different parts of his chest and he died. It is a matter between the spouses no person other than Farida and Khalid took part in the occurrence. No person from the vicinity or family member of deceased Khalid were present at the time of occurrence. No churri was recovered on my pointation.
' I was arrested by the police on the date of occurrence along with Fardia, but police mala fidely shown my arrest on 2-9-2Q03. On the date of occurrence police came to our house in the morning, arrested me and Farida, taken into possession a churri and taken away the dead-body. I have committed no offence. My wife Shama is the real sister of deceased Khalid, she deposed absolutely falsely in the Court in order to implicate me in this case. I have been falsely implicated in this case. I have got one son. I pray for justice."
' Remaining accused persons also adopted the above said version of Shahzad. No witness was examined in defence. The accused persons also did not make statements on oath. -
11. I find it convenient to take up the case of acquitted accused persons against whom the complainant has filed Criminal sAppeal No,605 of 2004.
12. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that presence of acquitted accused at the spot at the relevant time could not be disputed at any stage of investigation and trial and, therefore, their admitted presence should have been treated as a corroborative price of evidence against them. The contention is misconceived. Admittedly, the deceased reached the house of accused persons and was Jailed there. The presence of acquitted accused in their own house cannot be. Treated as an evidence against them on the charge of murder.
13. Mst. Fareeda Begum, acquitted accused, was wife of the deceased. It is the case of prosecution that an altercation took place between the spouses upon which she deserted her deceased husband and took shelter in the house of her parents. It was the deceased, who chased her and entered the house of his in laws. The family members of Mst. Fareeda Begum .Were not aware about the previous quarrel between the spouses and they were a caught by surprise when she reached there followed by her deceased husband. In such like situation, the accused persons were not supposed to arm themselves with weapons.
14. The learned counsel for the complainant half heartedly argued that at trial Mst. Fareeda Begum, acquitted accused, took the plea of self-defence of her person by saying that she killed her husband apprehending danger to her life and that her own plea which could not be substantiated with evidence coupled with the ocular account furnished by the eyewitnesses should have been made a basis for. Her conviction on the charge of murder. This is a matter of record that Shahzad Ahmad was the only make member of the family, who was present at the spot at the relevant time and in his presence his sisters and mother were not supposed to take up arms against the deceased, who was not a stranger. Keeping in view the spot being residential house of the accused and their close relationship with the deceased it is understandable that Mst. Fareeda Begum adopted the plea of self-defence to save her brother Shahzad Ahmad from legal consequences of the killing. The learned trial Court disbelieved her defence version as well as that of the prosecution version to the extent of acquitted accused persons.
15. It was a sudden flare up between members of the same family and, therefore, the allegation against the ladies that they attacked with Churri is not plausible and acceptable. The learned trial Judge acquitted them of the charge on the basis of valid grounds and his findings are not open to exception on any ground.
16. Now adverting to the case of Shahzad Ahmad, who was awarded life imprisonment, his learned counsel opted not to assail his conviction in case the Revision Petition by the complainant for enhancement of his sentence is dismissed. In view of above development I propose to examine and analyze the entire prosecution case to determine the quantum of sentence. The deceased was brother-in-law of Shahzad Ahmad, convict, being husband of his sister Mst. Fareeda Begum, acquitted accused. The deceased and his wife quarrelled with each other resulting in her desertion.
It is the prosecution case that Fareeda Begum acquitted accused, left the house of her deceased husband and took shelter in the house of her parents. The deceased followed her and entered the house of his in-laws, where he suffered death at the hands of his brother-in-law, Shahzad Ahmad.
Keeping in view the manner of incident it can safely be said that the deceased himself invited the trouble and contributed towards his own killing to some extent. Had the deceased not followed his wife up to the house of her parents, he would not have suffered the death at the hands of his brother-in-law. From the manner of incident it also appears that the deceased followed his wife in order to teach her a lesson on account of her desertion when her brother Shahzad Ahmad, convict, came to her rescue. He picked up a domestic Churri and caused injuries to the deceased. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court rightly awarded the sentence of life imprisonment and the quantum of sentence determined vide the impugned judgment is not open to exception on factual or legal grounds.
17. For what has been stated above the Criminal Revision No,240 of 2004 seeking enhancement of the sentence and the Criminal Appear No,605 of 2004 against the acquittal of the ladies accused persons stand dismissed as being without substance. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal No, 603 of 2004 filed by Shahzad Ahmad, convict, stands dismissed as having not been pressed.