' SH. NAJAM UL HASAN, J.---Murder Reference No, 291 of 2005 submitted by the learned trial Court seeking confirmation of death sentence awarded to Ghulam Haider, convict and Criminal Appeal No,477-J of 2006 filed by the said convict who was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara in case F.I.R. No,167 dated 2-6-2004 registered at Police Station B-Division, Okara for committing Qatl-i-amd of his wife Mst. Kishwar Bibi and for causing injuries to his daughter Mst. Yasmin and sentenced to death under section 302(b), P.P.C. And to pay Rs,50,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or to undergo six months simple imprisonment in default thereof and also convicted under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to 10 years with a fine of Rs,20,000 or to undergo simple imprisonment for two months in default of fine, being interconnected are disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The occurrence in the present case took place at 8-30 a.m. On 2-6-2004 within the area of Jalal Kot near Kot Nahal Singh 1-1/2 kilometers away from Police Station B-Division, Okara in which Mst.
Kishwer Bibi lost her life and her daughter Mst. Yasmeen received serious injuries at the hand of Ghulam Haider, appellant (husband of the deceased and father of the injured) and the matter was reported to the police by Mst. Rashidan Bibi, complainant (P.W.11) and her statement (Exh.PC) was recorded and formal F.I.R. (Exh.PC/1) was registered at Police Station.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution story narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. Are that her younger sister Mst. Kishwar Bibi was married to Ghulam Haider, a younger brother of her husband and out of the wed lock three children were born. Said Ghulam Haider was an addict and used to quarrel with his wife who was employed with a lady doctor and used to earn her livelihood. On the fateful day, Mst. Kishwer along with her daughter Mst. Yasmeen went to her duty and when they reached near plots of Jalal Town, they were waylaid by the appellant. In the meantime the complainant who was also going to her work also reached there. The appellant within her view and the witnesses caused chhuri blows to his wife Mst. Kishwar. The minor Yasmin tried to intervene upon which she was also injured by him.
4. On 2-6-2004 at 2-10 p.m. Lady Dr. Qaiser Tariq, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mst.
Kishwar and found as many as 13 incised wounds on different parts of the body. The doctor opined that all the injuries were ante mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post mortem 15 to 17 houRs, On the same day the lady doctor also medically examined Mst. Yasmeen and found five sharp-edged injuries on her body. Time between injuries and medico-legal examination was stated to be within 4 to 5 hours.
5. Allah Yar Watoo, Sub-Inspector investigated this case. He arrested the appellant on 11-6-2004 who while under custody led to the recovery of churri (P.6) After completion of investigation the appellant was challaned to Court to face trial.
6. At the commencement of trial, charge was framed against the appellant who denied the same and claimed trial. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution produced as many as thirteen witnesses out of which Lady Dr. Qaiser Tariq (P.W.10) proved medical evidence, Mst. Rashidan Bibi and Mst. Yasmeen (P.Ws. 11 and 12) provided ocular account and Allah Yar Wattoo Sub-Inspector (P.W.4) proved investigation. The other witnesses were formal in nature. After recording prosecution evidence the same was put to the appellant who denied and dismissed each piece of prosecution evidence. He was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. In reply to the question, "Why this case against you and why the P.Ws. Have deposed against you?" the appellant replied as under:-- "All the P.Ws. Are related inter se and inimical towards me. The occurrence was of late night, early in the morning. I also came to know about the occurrence and some unknown person committed this occurrence. Rashidan Bibi demanded the hands of my daughter Yasmin,- for his son. I was not agree for the same, due to which Rashidan Bibi/complainant in collusion with the P.Ws. And police planted this case against me I am innocent."
' At the conclusion of trial the appellant was convicted and sentenced as noted above.
7. Learned, counsel for the appellant contends that it was an un-seen occurrence; that some unknown persons had committed the murder of Mst. Kishwar Bibi who was lady of bad character and the appellant has been falsely involved in this case; that according to the postmortem report the time of occurrence comes round about mid of the night; that medico-legal-report of Mst.
Yasmeen, injured (P.W.12) indicates that injured was provided first aid by some other doctor as all the wounds were found already stitched by the medico-legal examiner. Further contends that P.W is the daughter of the appellant whereas the complainant is his sister-in-law and has falsely implicated him due to ulterior motive because he had refused to give the hands of his daughter to the son of the complainant; that recovery of blood stained Churri after 13 days of the occurrence indicate that the prosecution has maneuvered and concocted the story just to implicate the appellant; that such a big Churri cannot be kept by a person in his dub; that the recovery of Churri is of no use to the prosecution; that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the P.Ws; that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant and as such the appellant is entitled to be acquitted. The learned counsel has tried to argue that the appellant was alleged to have committed the murder of his own wife as such as per provision of section 306, P.P.C. He could not be punished with sentence of death.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Prosecutor-General states that the F.I.R. Was registered within one hour of the occurrence and the police station was at the distance of 1-1/2 Kilometers; that the F.I.R. Has been promptly lodged; that in this case the appellant has killed his own wife and injured his daughter; that the deceased received 13 sharp-edged injuries whereas injured received five sharp-edge injuries; that injured P.W.12 fully supported the prosecution case; that there was no reason as to why she would implicate her own father in place of some other person, no reason for false implication of appellant has come on record; that this is a case of single accused who was nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role and was found fully involved by the investigating officer and after trial, learned trial Court found him guilty and convicted him; that deceased and the appellant were still in their wedlock and no reason for false implication of the appellant has come on record; that recovery of blood stained Churn at the instance of the appellant fully supports the prosecution case and also corroborates with the medical evidence; that the injured was taken for medical examination by the police and presence of the injuries on her person fully proved the case; that appellant was convicted under section 324, P.P.C. And sentenced to 10 years' R.I. And that the learned trial Court should have convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 337, P.P.C.
Which was mandatory and that the appellant committed brutal murder of his wife, therefore, he is not entitled for any leniency.
9. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
10. This is an unfortunate occurrence in which Mst. Kishwar succumbed to injuries received by her at the hands of her husband Ghulam Haider, appellant and her daughter Mst. Yasmeen received serious injuries at the hands of her father i.e, the appellant. Complainant in this case was Mst.
Rashidan Bibi who was not only real sister of the deceased but also sister-in-law of the appellant being married to real elder brother of the appellant. The complainant stated in the F.I.R. That the occurrence took place on road side at 8-30 a.m. In the month of June when the deceased along with her injured daughter was going to her duty. This fact indicates that it was a broad daylight occurrence. The complainant alleged in the F.I.R. That the appellant appeared at the scene and gave chhuri blows to his wife Mst. Kishwar for not giving him money and when his daughter Mst.
Yasmeen tried to intervene she was also given chhuri blows by the appellant. The complainant appeared at trial as P.W.11 and deposed in line with her version narrated in the F.I.R. Mst. Yasmeen injured P.W.12 also entered the witness box and fully supported the version of the complainant. She was admittedly an injured witness and her injuries were not stated to be self-suffered. Apart from these two P.Ws. Muhammad Ashraf, a neighbour of the parties appeared as P.W.13 and fully supported the ocular account of the occurrence narrated by the complainant as also by the injured P.W. This P.W. Is an independent witness and not related to the parties in any manner. All these witnesses have fully implicated the appellant for the occurrence.
11. Mst. Yasmeen P.W.12 was a young girl of 16/17 years who was seriously injured during the occurrence. She was medically examined by the lady doctor and five sharp-edged injuries were found on her person. Her medical examination was conducted at 11-45 a.m. On 2-6-2004 and the time between injuries and the medico-legal examination was stated by the doctor to be 4 to 5 hours, It may be mentioned here that the complainant stated the time of occurrence in the F.I.R. As 8-30 a.m. Thus the time of injuries received by the injured witness coincides with the time of occurrence. She fully supported the prosecution version narrated by the complainant against her own father.
12. The star witness in this case is Mst. Yasmeen who was admittedly injured at the hands of the appellant during the occurrence. Although the appellant claimed that the deceased was a woman of bad character and that the occurrence had been committed by some unknown person and that the complainant wanted the hand of Mst. Yasmeen for her son to which he was not agreeing but the appellant did not suggest a single word on the part of Mst. Yasmeen for letting off the real culprit(s) and to falsely involve her real father. She was admittedly an injured eyewitness and her presence at the place of occurrence with her deceased mother cannot be doubted. There was no reason to disbelieve her. She is, therefore, reliable and trustworthy witness. Likewise credibility of Muhammad Ashraf, P.W.13 who was neighbour of the parties and was not related or interested witness is also established in absence of any ill-will or animosity.
13. It was the complainant's claim in the promptly lodged F.I.R. That the appellant gave chhuri blows to the deceased on different parts of her body and also injured Mst. Yasmeen with his chhuri. Lady Doctor (P.W.10) performed post mortem examination and observed as many as 13 sharp edged weapon injuries on the dead body. Likewise she medically examined Mst. Yasmeen injured and found five sharp-edged injuries on her person. Thus the ocular account is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The complainant alleged that the appellant gave chhuri blows to the deceased as also to the injured P.W. And the lady doctor observed all injuries on the person of the deceased as also on the injured P.W caused by sharp-edged weapon. Thus the weapon of offence alleged by the complainant stood proved by the medical evidence. It is worth mentioning that the appellant while under custody led to the recovery of chhuri (P.6) which was sent by the investigator to the Chemical Examiner and as per reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist (Exhs. PP & PR) the same was stained with human blood. Thus the recovery of weapon of offence fully corroborates the ocular account.
14. The motive for the occurrence was stated to be that the appellant was an addict and used to ask for money from the deceased who was employed at a clinic but she was not obliging the appellant. At trial the complainant and the injured P.W categorically stated that the appellant was an addict and he killed his wife and injured his daughter only because the deceased did not fulfil his demand of money. The said claim of the prosecution was not rebutted by the appellant nor did he offer himself for medical examination in disproof of claim of being addict. Thus we are of the considered view that the motive is fully proved by the prosecution.
15. Although the learned counsel for the appellant has thrown challenge on the time of occurrence in the light of the postmortem report according to which the deceased had been murdered 15 to 17 hours before the time of postmortem examination which was 2-00 p.m. On 2-6-2004. But this claim of the learned counsel falls to the ground when the statement of the doctor is read conjunctively with the time of injuries received by Mst. Yasmeen who received injuries at the time of occurrence mentioned in the F.I.R. We have also minutely examined the post mortem report in the light of this contention and have come to the conclusion that the time mentioned between death and post mortem was inadvertently written as 15 to 17 hours because in the relevant column of the post mortem report the time given under the Column "Death" initially the time was recorded as "9-00 p.m. On 2-6-2004" but later on the post-mortem examiner corrected this "P.M." with the word "A.M." and signed the same. If the word "9-00 P.M. On 2-6-2004" is read as correct then the post mortem was conducted even before the death of the deceased which is ridiculous and if the same is read as 9-00 A.M1 on 2-6-2004" it would mean that the postmortem was conducted after death of the deceased and the same coincides with the time stated by the complainant. It may also be noted that while under cross-examination the lady doctor emphatically refuted the suggestion that she had narrated probable duration of injuries as per police papers, Even otherwise when the ocular evidence is worth reliance then the same has to be given preference over other kind of evidence which is corroboratory in nature. The appellant did not refute the claim of the injured P.W that she had been injured at the hands of her father during the occurrence.
16. As stated above the eye-witnesses have fully proved the ocular account which has been corroborated by the medical evidence. The recovery of the weapon of offence at the behest of the appellant is also sufficient to prove his involvement in this case the motive is also proved by the witnesses. The claim of the appellant that his wife was murdered by some unknown person does not appeal to reason as the place of occurrence is road side and as alleged by the appellant if the occurrence had taken place at mid of night he must have reported the occurrence to the police especially when it has not been brought on record through cross-examination of the witnesses or through statement of the appellant that he did not live with the deceased and the injured.
17. All the facts and circumstances narrated above lead us to the irresistible conclusion that it was only and only the appellant who had committed the murder of his wife and had seriously injured his daughter and the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case against the appellant beyond any doubt.
18. So far as the contention of the learned counsel that the appellant could not have been sentenced to death in view of clause (c) of section 306, P.P.C. Is concerned, suffice it to say that the said provision of law is attracted only in cases where conviction and sentence is awarded as Qisas.
In the present case the appellant stood convicted and sentenced as Taazir, as such his case does not come within the ambit of above said provision of law. In arriving at this conclusion we are fortified by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Akram v. The State (2003 SCM R 855) and Sami Ullah and another v. Jamil Ahmad and another (2008 SCM R 1623).
19. The appellant committed gruesome murder of his wife in a callous manner. He also inflicted five Chhuri blows on his innocent daughter. He, therefore, does not deserve any leniency. It has been held by the superior Courts time and again that normal penalty in such like cases should be death and lesser penalty should be awarded to the convict only if some extenuating circumstances exist which are absent in the present case.
20. In view of what has been noticed and discussed above, we do not find any reason to differ with the well reasoned findings of the learned trial Court. Resultantly Criminal Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Murder Reference is answered in Affirmative and sentence of death is Confirmed.