' M. JAVED BUTTAR, J---This appeal, by leave, is directed against the judgment dated 5-4-2006 passed by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Criminal Appeal No, 4-J of 2006 filed by the appellant Shamshad Ali was dismissed and Murder Reference No,467 of 1999 forwarded by the trial Court was answered in affirmative and the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court was confirmed.
2. The appellant was tried in case F.I.R. No,148 dated 10-9-1998 registered at Police Station Wan Bachran, District Mianwali at the instance of Mst. Ameena Bibi (P.W.1), wife of the appellant for an occurrence of the same day in which complainant's and appellant's daughter Mst. Sajida Bibi (13/14) was killed for having suffered five incised wounds which were attributed to the appellant who was allegedly armed with a hatchet. Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Mianwali vide his judgment dated 22-10-1999, after regular trial, convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to death with a direction to pay Rs,2,00,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or to undergo five years R.I. However, at appeal stage, the amount of compensation was reduced to Rs,50,000 or he was to further suffer six months S.I.
3. It was alleged by the complainant Mst. Ameena Bibi (P.W.1), that on 10-9-1998 at about 3/4 p.m.
The appellant returned home from his job and on finding the deceased quarreling with her younger brothers and sisters, flew into rage, picked up a hatchet and attacked his daughter the deceased, the appellant caused injuries to her and after throwing the hatchet at the spot fled away. The complainant narrated that in the meanwhile P. Ws. Muhammad Rafiq and Jamal Shah, the brothers of the appellant also reached the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, the injured Mst. Sajida Bibi was taken to Wan Bachran Hospital wherefrom she was taken to DHQ Hospital, Mianwali where she succumbed to the injuries.
4. P.W.7 Falak Sher ASI, after registration of the F.I.R. (Exh.PA) reached the spot, prepared the injury statement, inquest report Inspected the spot, collected the bloodstained earth from the spot; seized the bloodstained hatchet, prepared the rough sketch, took into possession the last worn clothes of the deceased after the postmortem examination, got prepared the site plan from the draftsman on 13-9-1998, arrested the appellant on 25-9-1998 and after completion of the investigation, submitted the challan report under section 173, Cr.P.C. In Court for the trial.
5. The prosecution produced nine witnesses and after tendering in evidence the reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist, closed the evidence. The appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegations and professed innocence. In answer to a question that why this case against you, he stated as under:-- "Since the inception of my marriage with Mst. Ameena Bibi, P. W. Her brothers were not happy with me and she also became hostile towards myself at their instance. About six months before this occurrence Mst. Ameena Bibi along with her children including the deceased left my house and started living with her parents on a pretext. I also accompanied her at that time and stayed in the house of my in-laws. She arranged murderous assault on myself during my stay there. During my stay in the house of in-laws I learnt for the first time that Mst. Ameena Bibi was a woman of easy virtue and her brothers were involved in criminal activities. After coming to know these facts, I returned home along with my children. Later on, on the assurance of my brothers-in-law and the respectable of the locality I effected a compromise with my deserted wife Mst. Ameena Bibi and in this way she again started living with me. In my absence, Mst. Anieena Bibi invited strangers to her house and then persuaded Mst. Sajida Bibi deceased to develop illicit relations with them. She used to absent her-self from the house to provide an opportunity to the deceased and her visitors to have sexual intercourse.
' On the day of occurrence, I was away to earn my livelihood and in my absence some one might have killed the deceased after having failed to satisfy his sexual lust with her. After the occurrence, Mst. Ameena Bibi misled my brothers and succeeded to get a case registered against myself on an allegation that I killed Mst. Sajida Bibi as she used to quarrel with her brothers and sisters. At trial, she changed her first version and reshaped the motive. I do not know as to who killed my daughter".
' He opted not to appear as his own witness under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And did not produce any evidence in defence.
5-A. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab for the State and have also seen the available record with their able assistance.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that except the solitary statement of complainant Mst. Ameena Bibi (P.W.1), the wife of the appellant and mother of the deceased, there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the commission of the offence as alleged, the appellant's wife was a woman of easy virtue and was involving the deceased also in illicit activities and as the appellant used to restrain the complainant, he was falsely involved by the complainant to ,become independent to continue her illicit relationships and such like activities, the weapon of offence was not recovered from the appellant, that it was a case of no evidence and that the learned Judges of the High Court misread the evidence and wrongly dismissed the appellant's appeal.
' On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, Punjab while vehemently opposing the appeal, has submitted that the complainant is wife of the appellant and till the time of the occurrence, both of them along with their children were living together, therefore the complainant had no enmity with the appellant to falsely involve him for the murder of their real daughter, that the appellant caused repeated blows with the hatchet on the vital parts of the body of the deceased, hence he is not entitled to any leniency.
7. The occurrence in this case took place on 10-9-1998 at 3/4 p.m. Inside the house of the appellant and the complainant, the F.I.R. Was lodged on the same day at 6-30 p.m. On the statement of the complainant. The narration shows that the appellant inflicted a hatchet blow on the right hand of the deceased who on receiving the said injury, ran into a room but appellant followed her and inflicted hatchet blow on her head and another blow on her back. The evidence shows that the F.I.R.
Was lodged promptly, the investigation on the spot was carried out immediately, thus no time was left with the complainant and the police to concoct a story to falsely involve the appellant.
The place of occurrence admittedly was the house of the complainant and the appellant, therefore the complainant was a natural witness. After her examination-in-chief, she was subjected to lengthy cross examination but nothing in favour of the appellant came out in the same. The complainant had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in the present case. Her statement is confidence inspiring and solitary statement coming out of the mouth of a natural witness, even if it is not corroborated by any independent piece of evidence, is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. However, in the present case, the medical evidence also supported the ocular account. All the injuries were found to have been caused with sharp edged weapon. The appellant was the only accused alleged to have caused the said injuries, therefore the conflict in regard to the number of injuries caused by him, is not material.
8. The motive set up by the complainant at the trial was not given by her in the. Complaint. She stated that the appellant tried to commit sexual intercourse with the deceased. In our opinion, it is a dishonest improvement on her part. Similarly, we do not believe the motive stated in the complaint that the appellant suddenly flew into rage and inflicted five hatchet blows on the deceased, merely because the deceased, a young girl, 13/14 years old, was quarrelling with her younger brothers and sisters. In our opinion, the prosecution failed to prove the motive but because of the law laid down by this Court in the recent years, failure to prove the motive is not fatal to the prosecution case.
9. As regards the defence plea that the complainant was a woman of easy virtue and was encouraging the deceased to lead an immoral life, the same is without any basis. On the contrary the medical evidence falsified the allegation. The vaginal swabs of the deceased were taken by the Lady doctor Meena Gul, (P.W.9) W.M.O. Civil Dispensary, Shahpur during the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. According to the report of the Chemical Examiner, they were not found stained with semen. Moreover, it came out in the cross-examination of the Lady doctor that hymen of the deceased, at the time of postmortem, was intact. The appellant, therefore levelled false allegations in regard to the character of his real daughter, who was dead when he levelled these allegations.
10. No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment has been pointed out to us. The half hearted argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being the 'Wan' of the deceased, is governed by section 306, P.P.C. And therefore, cannot be punished for the qatl-e-amd of his daughter because of the provision of section 306, P.P.C., has also no force because in such a situation section 306(b), P.P.C. Provides that qatl-e-amd shall not be liable to Qisas whereas in the present case, the appellant has not been convicted under section 302(a), P.P.C. As Qisas but convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. As Tazir and cannot get any benefit from the provisions of section 306, P. P. C .
11. In our opinion, the prosecution had been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. We have tried to find any mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant for the lesser punishment but have found none. The deceased after receiving the first hatchet blow from the appellant ran inside a room and the appellant followed her and inflicted deadly blows on her repeatedly and one of the said blows became the cause of the death of deceased, therefore, he is not entitled to any leniency. Some concession has already been shown to him by the learned High Court through reducing the amount of compensation payable by the appellant from Rs,200,000 to Rs,50,000.
12. Before parting, it may be mentioned here, that in answer to directions issued by this Court, legal heirs of the deceased i,e, wife, three sons and two daughters of the appellant appeared in Court on 9-4-2008 and expressed that they were not willing to enter into a compromise with the appellant. It may, also be mentioned here, that the appellant's elder son who was a minor at the time of occurrence, is now a full grown up man.
In view of the above mentioned, we find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed.