1. GHULAM RASOOL K. SHAIKH, J.-This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi; con--victing the appellant for an offence under section 302, P. P. C. And sentencing him to death as no extenuating circumstance was found. This case has also come up for confirmation of the death sentence, on a reference under section 374, Cr. P. C. This judgment will dispose of both.
2. The incident had taken place on 8-10-1968 at. 10-45 p.m. In the brothel area and the first report was lodged by Muhammad Hanif at 11-15 a.m. At the Police Station situated at a distance of about 1-- furlongs. The first report was recorded by Nazir Hussain S. I. P.
3. Mst. Nargis was a prostitute and was living at Napier Road, The deceased Manzoori lived with Mst.
4. Nargis and was engaged in dancing and singing. The appellant used to visit the deceased as they had developed illicit connections. Subsequently the deceased developed liking for Rehmat witness and, therefore, the appellant got annoyed. Muhammad Hanif and Abdullah were in the employment of Mst. Nargis.
5. On 8th October 1968 at 10-45 p.m. The appellant visited the brothel area and sent a by by name Gul to deceased but she refused to go. So the appellant himself went upstairs and found the deceased with Rehmat. He asked" the deceased to go with him but she refused whereupon the appellant took out the knife from the folds of his shalwar and started stabbing Mst. Manzoori who fell down arid became unconscious. This assault was witnessed by Mst. Nargis, Rehmat, Muhammad Hanif and Abdullah. The appellant, after inflicting the injuries got down and. Started running but an alarm was raised and he was chased by Rehmat and others. Qurban Ali constable who was on duty in that area heard the cries and went running. Be found the appellant running being pursued by others. Qurban captured the appellant and secured the blood-stained knife from him: The appellant was then taken to the Police Station and produced before Mr. Nazir Hussain Shah in presence of the mashirs. Earlier Muhammad Hanif had gone to the Police Station and his first report was recorded. Mst. Nargis also took Mst. Manzoori in a rickshaw to the Police Station in an unconscious state and from there she was sent to the hospital where the doctor on examination declared her to be dead. After usual investigation the appellant was challaned. The blood-stained knife was sent to the Chemical Analyser who discovered human blood vide his report Exh. 27.
6. The appellant proclaimed his innocence and denied having caused the injuries. He also denied that either he had illicit connections with cost. Manzoori or he was annoyed over the illicit connections between Mst. Manzoori and Rehmat. He also denied that either he was secured by Qurban Ali in the brothel area or any knife was recovered from him. According to him he was sleeping at his shop from where the constable took him to the Police Station. He further stated that the S. H. O. Was annoyed with him as he had supplied tea to his relations and the S. H. O. Refused to pay the money in spite of his demands and he was giving threats. The witnesses had deposed at the instance of the Police. He did not examine any witness in defence.
7. The prosecution examined Dr. Alimul Haq, Dr. Muhammad Umar, Mst. Nargis, Qurban, Altaf Hussain masher of the scene of offence Jabbar Hussain, Abdul Hamid, Muhammad Hanif, Mr. Manzoor Hussain Shah S. I. P. Mr: Ashiq Hussain S. I. P. And Mr. Zafar Iqbal S. H. O.
8. The fact that Mst. Manzoori was murdered is borne out by the medical evidence. She bad the following injuries as found by Dr. Muhammad Umar the Police Surgeon.
9. "(1) Incised wound left shoulder back lateral side 1" x -- x 1" deep falling out laterally.
(2) Incised wound left side back at the lower and of scapula 1" x -- x cavity deep vertical.
(3) Incised wound left side chest 5-- below axila transfers 1" x --" x cavity deep.
(4) Incised wound left upper arm posteriorly at lower part 3" x 1" x muscle deep falling down and laterally.
(5) Abrasion left side back laterally 7" x 4".
(6) Abrasion right side back oblique 5" x --".
(7) Abrasion right shoulder on back 1" x --".
10. According to the medical officer the injuries were caused by a sharp-edged pointed weapon such as knife: The death was due to shock and haemorrhage and the injury on the left lung which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
11. As regards the identity of the appellant with the crime, firstly, there is the ocular testimony of four witnesses, namely, Mst. Nargis, Muhammad Hanif, Abdullah and Rehmat. Out of them Mst. Nargis and Muhammad Hanif were examined at the trial while the evidence of Abdullah and Rehmat recorded in the committal proceedings was admitted under section 33 of the Evidence Act as at that stage they were not traceable. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge excluded the evidence of Abdullah from consideration as Ghulam Hussain process-server had stated that if efforts had been made at Hyderabad where he was residing he could have been secured. In view of this we confine ourselves to the evidence of three witnesses Mst. Nargis, Muhammad Hanif and Rehmat.
12. Mst. Nargis stated that Mst. Manzoori deceased used to sing and dance. The appellant used to visit her as they had intimate relations with each other. About 10/15 days prior to this incident Rehmat started visiting the deceased and they developed illicit connections. On the day of incident she, Hanif, Abdullah Rehmat and Mst. Manzoori were sitting in the house when a by by name Gulbaz came and told Mst. Manzoori that she was wanted by the appellant downstairs but she refused.
13. After 10/15 minutes the appellant came there and called Mst. Manzoori in the verandah and asked her to accompany him outside the house but she refused whereupon the appellant took out a knife from the folds of his trousers and started stabbing Mst. Manzoori who fell down and the accused went out of the house. An alarm was raised and the appellant was chased by Rehmat, Abdullah, Hanif and others while site remained behind with Mst. Manzoori and took her in a rickshaw to Napier Police Station in an unconscious state. Thereafter Qurban accompanied her to the hospital. She further stated that Qurban had brought the appellant at the Police Station Mst. Manzoori died when they reached he hospital. So far the knife is concerned she stated that she could not identify it.
14. Similar is the evidence of Muhammad Hanif and Rehmat. They fully implicated the appellant for stabbing the deceased. They further stated that after the appellant tried to escape they chased him and raised an alarm. Qurban constable arrived and the appellant was captured. The blood- stained knife was secured from him. Muhammad Hanif went to the Police Station' where he lodged the first report.
15. The learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted the evidence of these three witnesses and we see no reason to disagree with him. The learned counsel did not succeed in assailing. The evidence. - Nothing was brought out in the cross-examination to indicate that they did not give true evidence.
16. They are natural. Witnesses and their presence at the scene of offence at the the of this incident cannot be doubted. It was the house of Mst. Nargis where the incident had taken place. The deceased was also carrying on the profession in the same house and was living there. Muhammad Hanif is the servant of Mst. Nargis. So far Rehmat is concerned he had contracted illicit connections with the deceased and was a regular visitor.
17. Their evidence finds ample corroboration from the evidence of Qurban, Jabber Hussain and Abdul Hamid. All the three were attracted by the alarm raised when Muhammad Hanif and others bad chased the appellant. They had seen the appellant running with the blood-stained knife and he was captured. The presence also cannot be doubted, Qurban Ali was the constable on duty in that area. Jabbar Hussain had an ice shop on the same road. At that ties he was standing in front of beetle leaves shop situated on the same road. They are independent witnesses and they had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. They dispelled the suggestion that the appellant was shouting that Rehmat had killed Mst. Manzoori and he had snatched the knife from Rehmat and was going to the Police Station to lodge the report. It tray be pointed out here that although this suggestion was made to the witnesses but the appellant did not adopt in his statements either in the committal proceedings or in the Sessions Court. This suggestion was not only repudiated by the witnesses but it remained unsub--stantiated.
18. Lastly, is the recovery of the blood-stained knife from the possession of the appellant. This recovery has been established by the evidence of Qurban, Iqbal and Abdul Hamid, as well as by the evidence of Mr. Manzoor Hussain Shah S. I. P. And mashirnama Exh.
15. Abdul Hamid was one of the mashirs for the production of the appellant and the knife at the, Police Station and this further confirm that he was one of the persons who were attracted by the alarm when the appellant was chased and captured.
19. The appellant has failed to challenge the oral as well as circumstantial evidence appearing against him. His case was of bare denial which cannot be accepted. He made allegations against the S. H. O. But even those allegations are not substantial and had remained unsubstantiated apart from the fact that the witnesses had nothing to do with S. H. O. The spot where the incident had taken place cannot be denied. Nor it is possible to say that none had witnessed the incident. It is, therefore, inconceivable that the witnesses spared the real culprit and instead substituted the appellant for the murder of Mst. Manzoori. It is a case of pre-mediated and cold-blooded murder for a base motive. We do not find that there was any provocation providing to serve as mitigating circumstances to avoid the death sentences. It is true that at one the the deceased had remained as mistress of the appellant but at the same the it cannot be ignored that she was a dancing girl given to prostitution, -though had some preference, and, therefore, the appellant could not claim her exclusively to himself nor it was expected. On that occasion it was not the unexpected sight of his rival that distressed him. The deceased had already broken of her connections with him and had liaison with another. He had gone armed with a knife, apparently with an intention to kill her.
20. The refusal of the deceased added to his fury. He brutally assaulted her, and inflicted seven injuries with the result that she was immediately rendered unconscious and did not survive for more than half an hour.
21. In the circumstances, we accept the reference and maintain the conviction and sentence of death passed against the appellant and dismiss the appeal.