G. M. SHAH, J.----The appellant Khan Mohammad Rajri (25) was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sukkur, under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of his, relative Mevo and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo R. I. For a further period of one year vide judgment dated 15th of April, 1978. The learned Judge awarded lesser sentence to him for the reason that the appellant had caused only one hatchet blow to the deceased, because the deceased used to call him a loafer, meaning thereby that he was a vagabond. The appellant had therefore, in the opinion of. The learned Judge, caused some provocation, which served as a mitigating circumstance for awarding him lesser sentence. The appellant has preferred the appeal against the judgment of his conviction and sentence.
2. The appellant is closely related to the first informer Illahi Bux. The appellant is his ---Masat'
(cousin) being Illahi Bux's mother's sister's son. Deceased Mevo (45) was the husband of Mst. Razul
(30) sister of Illahi Bux. Mst. Janul is their mother. Shah Nawaz (13) is son of deceased Mevo, They all lived together in the same house.
3. The appellant was residing at a distance of about half a mile from the house of Illahi Bux. He used to visit the house of the deceased of and on, and, the deceased used to ask him not to visit his house, as he was a vagabond and suspected him carrying on illicit relationship with his were Mst.
Razul, who was much younger than the deceased. The appellant was, therefore, alleged to have been nursing a grudge against the deceased Mevo.
4. On the night between 23rd and 24th of September, 1976, when after breaking' their fast, being the month of Ramazan, and having their dinner, all the inmates of the house of the deceased, were sleeping by about mid-night time, and the lantern was burning, the appellant came armed with a hatchet and inflicted a fatal blow on the neck of the deceased, causing a deep wound 6" x 4" x 4" on the right sine of the neck of the deceased, cutting the trachea (wind pipe) resulting in his instantaneous death. On the barking of the dog, Illahi Bux had got up, He saw the appellant giving one hatchet blow to the deceased, who was sleeping on a separate cot, placed on the raised, platfrom, in front of his house. He raised cries, on which Mst. Razul, Mst. Janul and Shah Nawaz also got up and saw the incident. After inflicting the hatchet injury, the appellant ran way, In the meantime, people from the neigh. Bourhood also reached there. Illahi tux then went to P. S. Deharki and lodged the following F. I. R.
"I am residing with my sister's husband the deceased Mevo. On last night, after having the night meals, I, my sister's husband the deceased Mevo, my sister Mst. Razul, my mother Mst. Janul and my nephew Shah Nawaz were steeping on the separate cots, lying on the mound, in front of our house, The lantern was burning. At about midnight on barking of the dogs, I were upon the light of lantern, I identified and saw one Khan Mohammad son of Adat Rajri by caste, inflicting hatchet blow to Mevo, my brother. In-law, who was sleeping on the cot, Mevo raised roaring while I raised cries. On the cries, my sister Razul, nephew Shah Nawaz and my mother Mst. Janul also were up, They also saw accused Khan Mohammad. Thereafter accused ran away towards west, alongwith his hatchet, On the cries the neighbourers namely Sijawal and Gulan also came there, To whom I narrated the above facts, Thereafter We saw that Mevo has sustained hatchet injuries on right side of neck. His throat and chin were cut and has bled and was dead. Thereafter, having deputed the above witnesses over the dead body, I narrated the above facts to my nekmard Mazhar Ali Khan Rajri, who advised me to go to Police Station and lodge the complaint. Now I have come to lodge the complaint that accused was carrying on illicit terms with my sister and hence Mevo my brother-in-law had prevented the accused from visiting his house. Due to this grudge, he has committed murder of my brother-in-law by giving him hatchet blow. I lodge complaint, justice be done."
5. After recording F. I. R. At 5-30 a.m. A. S. I. P. Mohammad Hussain, accompanied Illahi Bux and reached the vardat, which was on a raised platform in front of the house of deceased Mevo, whose dead body was lying on the cot. The 'Relhi', spread underneath, was soaked with blood. A lantern was found burning, which was taken in possession under the mashirnama. Statements of witnesses Mst. Razul, Mst. Janul, Shah Nawaz and others, who were present, were recorded. On the same day the appellant was arrested from his house at about 8-30 a.m. He was wearing a blue coloured tetrone shirt and same material blue coloured loin-cloth. Both were blood-stained. The Mashirnama of arrest and recovery of clothes was prepared (Exh. 13). The appellant led the Police party to his "bajra" cultivation, about one furlong away from his house and voluntarily produced a blood-stained hatchet, which was secured in presence of the mashirs (Exh. 14). All the blood- stained articles consisting of the clothes of the appellant, earth and the hatchet, were sent on 8October, 1976 to the Government Chemical Examiner for examination and report which was given on 29th June, 1977, certifying that the articles were stained with human blood.
6. The autopsy on the dead body of deceased Mevo was performed by Dr. Sudhamal, Medical Officer, Dharki Dispensary who found the following one external injury on the dead body:-
(1) One incised wound 6" x 4" on the right side of the neck, cutting mendible blood vessels, trachea and oesophagus.
On internal examination, the doctor found the Trachea, carotid vessels and oesphagus cut. The stomach contained semi-solid food. In the opinion of the doctor, the injury was anti-mortem and appeared to have been caused by a sharp-cutting weapon such as a hatchet, and was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.
7. The appellant had denied the prosecution allegations and contended that he was falsely implicated by the witnesses at the instance of one Mazhar Ali Khan, who is inimical to him. He hadth led no defence.
8. The evidence produced at the trial, by the prosecution, is the ocular testimony of four eye- witnesses, namely Illahi Bux, first informer, his sister Mst. Razul were of the deceased Mevo, his mother Mst. Janul and Shah Nawaz son of the deceased. All of them claim to have witnessed the occurrence. They stand supported by the medical evidence of Dr. Sudhomal. There is also the recovery of blood-stained shirt and loin-cloth from the possession of the appellant who had voluntarily produced the hatchet, stained with human blood, as per the report of the Chemical Examiner. Finally, there is evidence of motive alleged by the eye-witnesses.
9. We have been taken through the evidence in the case, by Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Manzoor Hussain for A.-G. For the State. We are of the view that there is sufficient evidence on the record against the appellant to sustain his conviction. According to Illahi Bux, the appellant is his `masat' and was living about half a mile from his house. In his F. I. R. Lodged with the Police, he had alleged that the appellant was carrying on illicit relationship with his sister Mst. Razul, hence her husband, deceased Mevo, had prevented the appellant from visiting his house. Due to this grudge, the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. At the trial Illahi Bux has testified that at about mid-night time, all of them namely Mst. Razul. Mst. Janul, Shah Nawaz and the deceased were sleeping, on separate cots, on the raised platform, in front of their house, and the lantern was burning. He has further deposed that on the barking of the dog, he got up and saw the appellant armed with a hatchet inflicting one hatchet blow to the deceased. He raised cries, which were up his sister Mst. Razul and mother Mst. Janul and nephew Shah Nawaz, and they had also witnessed the occurrence. After inflicting the fatal blow, the appellant is stated to have escaped with the hatchet. Since the face of the appellant was open and he is known to all the witnesses, being closely related, he was identified by all of them, on the light of the lantern, which was burning, hung in a wooden pole, near the cot of the deceased.
The other witnesses also have deposed the same facts, having witnessed the appellant giving the blow to the deceased. They are consistent in their version. In his cross-examination, however, Illahi Bux has admitted that between the deceased Mevo and Allahdino, their neighbour, proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. C. Were filed in the Court of the Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Ubauro, which were pending at the time of this incident. There was also a case of arson filed by deceased Mevo against Allahdino in the Court of Civil Judge and F. C. M., Mirpur Mathelo Illahi Bux has further stated in the cross-examination that Allahdino was granted agricultural land by the Govern--ment, which he had sold to one Mazhar Ali Khan, who had given that land to deceased Mevo for cultivation and had settled the deceased on the land. Subsequently, Allahdino got back that land from Mazhar Ali Khan and had asked the deceased Mevo, to vacate the land, which he had refused. Hence, proceedings under section 107, Cr. P. C. Were instituted between the parties. He has also admitted in his lengthy cross-examination that the Police had first arrested Allahdino and his two brothers, in this case, for a day and on the following day let them of at the instance of Mazhar Ali Khan. These obliging admissions by Illahi Bux appear to have been extracted from him in order to provide a defence to the appellant. The A. S. I. P. Mohammad Hussain, who had arrested the appellant, was not asked, whether he had arrested Allahdino and his two brothers, in connection with this case.
There is nothing in evidence, to suggest that Police had left of Allahdino and his brothers at the instance of Mazhar Ali Khan. Even otherwise, these admissions appear to be irrelevant, inasmuch as, the relationship between Allahdino and Mazhar Ali Khan could not have been cordial. The reason being that after the land was sold by Allafidino to Mazhar Ali Khan, who had settled the deceased Mevo on his land, and when Allahdino got back that land, he had asked deceased Mevo to vacate it and Mevo had refused to do so. There was also litigation between the deceased and Allahdino. It is possible, in absence of direct evidence on the point, that Mazhar Ali Khan would have sided the deceased Mevo, whom he had settled on the land and would not have helped Allahdino and his brothers to be let of, if they were at all arrested in this case.
10. Mr. Junejo has argued that this was an unwitnessed crime. Some other person had killed the deceased and the appellant was substituted. He has eLahorated his argument by pointing out that there was no special reason for keeping the lantern burning, specially at the alleged spot, to facilitate seeing the assailant. He has contended- that the assailant would take all possible precautions to conceal himself: He has therefore, submitted that the lantern was introduced as an improvement in the evidence in the case. Since one injury was caused, it would have taken the assailant a few seconds to hit the blow and run. No one could possibly have seen him in the dark night. He submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated. From the evidence on the record, we find the argument of the learned counsel untenable. Illahi Bux had woken up, on the barking of the dog, which was before the actual blow was given to the deceased. He saw the appellant inflicting the hatchet blow on the neck of the deceased. On his' cries, the other inmates of the house Mst. Razul, Mst. Janul and Shah Nawaz had got up and seen the appellant causing hatchet injuries to the deceased. Mst. Razul, who was on illicit terms with the appellant, has testified that after breaking the fast, they had taken dinner at about 8 p.m. And by 9 p.m., they had gone to sleep. The lantern was kept burning, where they were sleeping, on the raised platform. Suddenly, on the cries of Illahi Bux she her mother Mst. Janul and Shah Nawaz got up and saw the appellant, who is related to them, giving hatchet blow to the deceased and then fleeing away. She has admitted that the appellant is related to them and had been visiting their house. She has further deposed that the appellant had murdered her husband Mevo, because he (Mevo) had been telling the appellant that he was a loafer and had asked him not to visit his house. In almost the same words, is the testimony of Mst. Janul and Shah Nawaz. All the four eyewitnesses are inmates of the house of the deceased and are natural witnesses. According to A. S. I. P. Mohammad Hussain, Illahi Bux had reached P. S. Dharki at about 5-30 a.m. And lodged the F. I. R. The distance between P. S. Dharki and the vardat, which is the house of Illahi Bux, is four miles. It is argued by Mr. Junejo that according to the doctor, the deceased might have taken his food, about two hours before his death, as the stomach of the deceased contained semi-solid material, therefore the alleged murder must have been committed at about 10 or 11 p.m. And the F. I. R. Was lodged so late at 5.30 a.m., after consultation and deliberations to include the name of the appellant. This argument has no force. The life and customs in villages are different from cities. When a ghastly murder takes place in the house of people in a village, it unnerves each member of the family, Even if the murder had taken place at about 11 P.M., a person had first to get over the shock of the death of the head of the family and cover a distance of four miles in the dark night and reach the police station for lodging of the report it cannot be said that there was delay in lodging of the F. I. R. During dark nights in villages people invariably keep the lantern burning for security reasons to be able to see the Intruders inside the house or for visibility to locate and see the things around in the house. It may look odd for people living in cities, where there is electricity; but there also one bulb is often kept on, in the courtyards or compounds of the houses for seeing things outside. The mashir as well as, the A. S. I. P. Mohammad Hussain have testified that when they reached the vardat, the lantern was found burning, which was taken into possession under the Mashirnama (Exh. 11). There is no material to doubt their statements.
11. It is next argued by Mr. Junejo that the first informer had resiled from the motive, inasmuch as, he had mentioned in the F. I. R. About illicit relationship of the appellant with Mst. Razul were of the deceased Mevo, which, in his statement at the trial, he had not specified. While reading in-between the lines in the statement of Illahi Bux, we find that he does speak of the motive. He has stated that the appellant had been visiting their house of and on and the deceased had been asking him (appellant) not to visit his house and was telling him that he was a loafer, which had motivated the appellant to commit his murder. We cannot overlook the fact that the appellant is `masat' of Illahi Bux and is alleged to have been having illicit relationship with Mst. Razul, who is his real sister. It may be that Illahi Bux had felt ashamed of using the specific words at the trial that his sister was carrying on with the appellant. However, his statement does indicate nothing else, but that the deceased did suspect the appellant with his were and had asked him not to visit his house.
12. It is further submitted by Mr. Junejo that all the interested eye-witnesses, hostile to the appellant were produced and examined in Court by the prosecution, when independent witnesses. Who had reached the vardat, were given up. There is, therefore, no independent corroboration of the testimony of the interested witnesses, whose version of the occurrence, should be discarded. In view of overwhelming evidence against the appellant, supported by the recovery of blood-stained hatchet and clothes, we find it difficult to agree with Mr. Mohammad Hayat Junejo.
13. Absence of independent witnesses in cases of murder is some time, though regrettable, but is understandable. Firstly, the independent witnesses do not like to risk the animosity of the accused and his relatives and party people. Secondly, they have to visit the police stations and Courts repeatedly so many times; that they get the impression that they are facing situations worse than the actual culprits. This has almost become the pattern of behaviour in our society. Fear of the accused and his partisans and the harassments and humiliations in the process, till their statements are recorded and completed in the trial Courts, keep them away from volunteering to become witnesses. In cases where there are inmates of the house, who are natural witnesses, like the instant case, their credibility and veracity depends upon the inherent merit of their statements.
All the four eye-witnesses in the instant case are admittedly closely related inter se, but their statements stand corroborated by the motive and recoveries. We have carefully examined the evidence of the eye-witnesses and find that there is no such enmity brought on the record, which could possibly persuade the witnesses to falsely implicate the appellant.
14. Lastly, it is argued by Mr. Junejo that the blood found on the clothes of the appellant is inconsistent with the injuries received by the deceased. It is contended that in view of the nature of the injuries, the clothes of the appellant would have been soaked, with blood, which is not the case.
We are not in agreement with the learned counsel. The appellant was armed with a hatchet having a wooden handle, which could conveniently keep him at a distance from the deceased who was fast asleep. After examining the location, a determined attack was made and the blow was inflicted on the neck, causing the wound 6" x 4" x 4", cutting the mendible blood vessels, trachea and oesophagus. Therefore spots of blood were found on the front pocket of the shirt and there were big size blood stains near the border in the middle of the loin-cloth, which were of human origin according to the report (Exh. 24) given by the Chemical Examiner.
15. The appellant was named in the F. I. R. And was assigned the specific part, as well as, the motive, for committing the alleged crime. He was arrested within about three hours of lodging of the F. I. R.
He was still wearing the blood-stained clothes, which were secured from his person. At about the same time, he had led the Police at a distance of about two furlongs from his house, and produced a blood-stained hatchet, from an old "Garhli" from his "bajra" cultivation. The contention of the appellant that the witnesses had deposed against him at the instance of Mazhar Ali Khan, who is inimical to him, is not borne out from the evidence. The evidence of the eye-witnesses, supported by the pieces of circumstantial and medical evidence, we are satisfied that the guilt of the appellant has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. We find no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed.