Tariq Shamim, J.--The appellant, namely, Mushtaq Ahmad alias Lila Sain son of Hakim Din was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, in case bearing F.I.R. No, 121/98, registered with Police Station Hajipura, Sialkot, for offence under Sections 324 and 302 P.P.C. The learned trial Judge by virtue of his judgment dated 26.2.2002 found him guilty for committing qatl-e-amd of Mst. Mumtaz Begum deceased, convicted under Section 302(b) P.P.0 and sentenced him to death with a direction to pay compensation of Rs, 50,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased as envisaged under Section 544-A Cr.P.0 and in default thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted under Section 337-F(i) P.P.0 for causing simple injuries on the person of Khalid PW and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. The appellant by filing this appeal through Jail has called in question the convictions and sentences awarded to him vide the impugned judgment, whereas the learned trial Judge has sent Murder Reference No, 779 of 2002 for confirmation of death sentence.
3. Precisely the allegations against the appellant, according to the F.I.R. (Ex.PA) which was got registered by Abdul Razaq complainant (PW-1), are that Mushtaq alias Lila Sain appellant, who is his brother, had been turned out from the house because of his disobedience. On the day of occurrence, the complainant went to his shop as usual and his wife Mst. Mumtaz Begum was busy in house work. His brother Muhammad Khalid (PW-2) was also present in the house. At about 9.30 a.m. the appellant entered the house while armed with a Chhurri. He started quarreling with the wife of the complainant. Khalid refrained him. On this the appellant became furious and attacked upon Mst. Mumtaz with a Chhurri and she after sustaining injuries on front of her chest, right flank and back fell down. Khalid (PW-2) stepped forward but the appellant inflicted two blows on his left wrist. On his hue and cry, Muhammad Arshad attracted and the appellant decamped from the spot with his Chhurri. On receiving the information, the complainant reached the scene of occurrence. Mst. Mumtaz Begum was lying in an injured condition who was shifted to the hospital where she succumbed to the injuries. The motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R is that the appellant was turned out of the house because of his disobedience and on this account he murdered the wife of the complainant.
4. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Abdul Razaq complainant appeared as PW-1. He averred on the same lines as the F.I.R. Muhammad Khalid, the eye-witness, appeared as PW-2. Safia. Bibi another eye-witness appeared as PW-3, Karamat Ali appeared as PW-4, Muhammad Idrees Constable appeared as PW-7 to whom the dead body of Mst. Mumtaz Begum was handed over by the Investigating Officer for onward transmission to Allama, Iqbal Memorial Hospital for postmortem examination. Muhammad Arif, A.S.I., appeared as PW-8 to whom the Investigating Officer handed over two parcels containing blood stained earth and Chhurri. On 28.3.1998 he handed over the said parcels to Muhammad Saleem Constable to send them to the Office of the Chemical Examiner. Akhtar Naqqas Naqsha Nawees appeared as PW-9. He, on 22.3.1998, visited the spot and took rough notes on the direction and pointation of police and PWs.
Thereafter he prepared scale site-plan Ex.PH. He handed over the site-plan and its duplicate Ex.PH/1 and its triplicate Ex.PH/2 to the police on 24.3.1998. Sub Inspector appeared as PW-10 who deposed that on 21.3.1998 he was posted at Police Station Hajipura and he received complaint Ex.PA from Muhammad Altaf Constable for lodging of formal F.I.R., on the basis whereof he drafted formal F.I.R Ex.PA/1. Muhammad Saleem Constable appeared as PW-11. Ghulam Ghaus Sub Inspector appeared as PW 12. He deposed that on 21.3.1998 he was posted at Police Station Hajipura; on the same day he received information about the occurrence; he along with police contingent went to the Sardar Begum Hospital, Sialkot where the complainant got recorded his statement Ex.PA; he inspected the dead body of Mumtaz Begum and prepared inquest report Ex.PJ and injury statement Ex.PK; he drafted an application for postmortem examination Ex.PL and despatched the dead body under the escort of Muhammad Idrees Constable for postmortem examination; he went to the place of occurrence and inspected the spot; he took the blood stained earth from the spot and made it into sealed parcel vide memo Ex.PM; he recorded the statements of PWs under Section 161 Cr.P.C; Last worn clothes of the deceased Qamez P-1, Shalwar P-2, Dopatta P-3 (all blood stained) and he took them into possession vide memo Ex.PF; on 22.3.1998 he arrested the accused Mushtaq Ahmad; at the time of arrest the accused was in possession of Chhurri which was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PG; he also recorded the statements of PWs u/S. 161 Cr.P.C; he prepared a site- plan regarding the place of recovery vide Ex.PN; on 23.3.98 he sent the accused in the judicial custody. Lady Doctor Rahat Firdous, Women Medical Officer, appeared as PW-5. She deposed that on 21.3.98 at 2.30 p.m. she conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Mumtaz Begum. She found the following injuries on the dead body of Mst. Mumtaz Begum deceased:--
(i) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm in the abdomen on the left side in the hypochondriac region.
(ii) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm on the left side of chest below the breast.
(iii) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm on the medial side of nipple on the left breast.
(iv) Incised wound 3 x 1 cm on the epigastric region,
(v) Incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm in the right hypochondrium.
(vi) Incised wound 1 x 1 cm in the public region,
(vii) Incised wound 6 cm x 3 cm in the right inguinal region on the anterior aspect of right thigh,
(viii) Incised wound 24 cm x 1 cm on the right lumbosacral region over the back.
(ix) Incised wound 3 cm x 1 cm on the right lumosacral region, 3 cm away fron injury No, viii.
'(x) Abraded swelling on the front of right knee.
In her opinion Injury No, 2 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable duration that elapsed between injuries and death was within half an hour and that between death and postmortem was 4 to 5 hours. Dr. Muhammad Ashfaq, Medical Officer, Allama Iqbal Memorial Hospital, Sialkot appeared as PW-6. On 21.3.98 he examined Mst. Mumtaz Begum.
5. At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused under Section 342 Cr.P.0 was recorded by the learned trial Court. In answer to the question as to why the case against him and why the PWs had deposed against him, Mushtaq Ahmad appellant replied:-- "I am innocent. The PWs are interested witnesses. I have been falsely implicated due to family dispute and rifts. The complainant wants to occupy and assimilate my movable and immovable properties."
The appellant neither appeared as his own witness in terms of Section 340(2) Cr.P.0 nor did he produce any evidence in his defence.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and the eye-witnesses; that in fact unknown dacoits had entered the house of the complainant and while committing dacoity on resistance by the deceased had stabbed her to death; that the eye-witnesses were closely related to the deceased; that there were material contradictions and improvements in the statements of the eye-witnesses; that the motive as set up by the prosecution was not proved at the trial; that the eyewitnesses were closely related and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on their testimony without corroboration from some independent source which was not forthcoming; that the medical evidence was in conflict with the ocular account; that the eyewitnesses in their statements had made contradictions and improvements; that the eye-witnesses were not present at the relevant time; that the F.I.R was reported with delay which implied that the complainant and the witnesses had ample time for consultation; that the ocular account was not inline with the medical evidence; that the weapon of offence i.e Chhurri was planted .by the police on the appellant and that the motive could not be proved at the trial by the prosecution.
7. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General while representing the State contended that the F.I.R was lodged with promptitude by the complainant; that there was no plausible reason for the witnesses to have falsely implicate the appellant in the crime; that it was a broad day light occurrence, thus, question of substitution did not arise; that the plea taken by the appellant at the trial did not appeal to reason; that medical evidence, the motive and the recovery of Chhurri from the possession of the appellant supported the ocular account which was credible and had been furnished by the witnesses whose presence at the spot at the time of occurrence was natural and well established; that the discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses were minor in nature and not sufficient to discredit the testimony of the witnesses and that the appellant had committed gruesome murder of the deceased, hence he deserved no leniency.
8. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the paper book with their able assistance.
9. The occurrence in this case took place in the house of Abdul Razzaq, the complainant, on 21.3.1998 at about 9.30 a.m. which was witnessed by Muhammad Khalid PW-2, his brother and Sadia Bibi PW3 his daughter. According to the said witnesses, at the given time the appellant entered the house of the complainant and started washing his hands and face at the place where utensils were cleaned. The deceased admonished the appellant for doing so whereupon the appellant inflicted Chhurri blows on the front of her chest, right flank and back side of the chest.
Muhammad Khalid PW-2 tried to intervene but was also injured by the appellant. Mumtaz Begum was taken to the hospital for treatment where she succumbed to the injuries. The witnesses are consistent in their stand as to the manner in which the occurrence had taken place. No material contradictions or improvements could be pointed out by the learned counsel representing the appellant in the statements made by the witnesses at the trial. Although the witnesses were subjected to lengthy cross-examination but nothing favourable could be extracted by the defence.
The occurrence took place in the house of the complainant and the witnesses being residents of the house are natural witnesses whose presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time cannot be doubted. Insofar as the testimony furnished by Abdul Razzaq (PW-1) is concerned, we are of the opinion that this witness had not seen the occurrence. From the F.I.R as well as testimony furnished by this witness it reflects that he was not present at the place of occurrence when it took place. It has been asserted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the eye-witnesses are closely related to each other, therefore, their testimony cannot be relied upon. It is pointed out that Abdul Razzaq (PW-1) is the brother of the complainant as well as the appellant whereas Mst. Sadia is the daughter of the complainant and niece of the appellant. Being so closely related to both sides, there is no possibility of the witnesses falsely implicating the appellant.
10. In the instant case the F.I.R was lodged after one hour and 40 minutes/of the occurrence. It is in the testimony of Muhammad Khalid PW-2 that the deceased was first taken to the hospital whereafter the matter was reported to the police. This obviously explains the minor delay in lodging of the F.I.R. Even otherwise, in such an occurrence, the priority of the relatives of the victim is to provide medical aid before reporting the matter to the police. Insofar as motive for the occurrence is concerned, the same has not been seriously questioned by the defence. Be that as it may, suffice it to say that motive is a state of mind of an accused which can be formed at the spur of the moment. Even otherwise, as has been held by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of cases, lack of motive or non-proof of motive is immaterial.
11. The medical evidence in this case was furnished by Lady Doctor Rahat Firdous (PW-5) who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Mumtaz Begum on 21.3.1998 at 2.30 p.m. As many as nine incised wounds were found on the body of the deceased which tend to show that the murder of the deceased was committed in a brutal manner by the appellant. The medical evidence furnished by the Lady Doctor is inline with the ocular account furnished by the witnesses and is conclusive to the extent of time of receipt of injuries by the deceased, the locale of injuries and the weapon used by the assailant. Further, Dr. Muhammad Ashfaq (PW-6) who examined Muhammad Khalid (PW-2) found a number of incised wounds on his person which is inline with the ocular account. There is nothing in the testimony of this witness to suggest that the injuries were self suffered or caused by a friendly hand. The presence of Muhammad Khalid (PW2) at the place of occurrence in view thereof stands well established. Further, this witness is equally related to the complainant and the appellant being their real brother, thus, there was no plausible reason for him to have falsely involve the appellant in the crime.
12. Now adverting to the recovery of Chhurri P-4 from the appellant it has been noticed that the occurrence in this case took place on 21.3.1998 and the accused was arrested the very next day from whose possession blood stained Chhurri was recovered. It does not appeal to reason that the Investigating Officer would go to the extent of planting a false recovery upon the appellant. In any case, evidence of recovery of weapon is only a supporting piece of evidence and fate of the case does not turn on it alone particularly when the eye-witness account is found to be credible and confidence inspiring as in the instant case.
13. Adverting to the plea of false implication taken by the appellant at the trial, suffice it to say that there is nothing in evidence to even remotely suggest that the eye-witnesses were inimical towards him or there existed strong enmity between the parties which could have prompted the witnesses to falsely involve the appellant in the crime. The plea taken by the defence at the trial is preposterous.
14. After having gone through the evidence adduced at the trial by the prosecution we are constraint to draw only one conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt.
As a sequel to the above, while maintaining the conviction and sentence of the appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court we DISMISS this appeal. Consequently, the sentence of death is CONFIRMED.
The murder reference is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.