Siraj Din alias Muhammad Hussain, son of Jhanda, caste Mochi. Aged 50 years, labourer, resident of Karor, Tehsil Leiah, District Muzaffargarh, has sent this appeal from jail against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, dated the 3rd November, 1977, whereby he was convicted under section 364 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs 2.000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year He has also appeared personally before this Court and has been heard.
2. The events and circumstances leading to the involvement of Siraj Din alias Muhammad Hussain appellant in the case which resulted in his conviction may be shortly stated as follows : Mst.
Hussaina (P. W. 7), her deceased husband, Muhammad Boota and the appellant belonged to the same brotherhood. Muhammad Boota deceased worked as a cobbler in village Asal Suleman, Police Station, Kahna, District Lahore. The appel--lant. Who had abducted an aunt of Mukhtar Ahmad (P. W. 9) and married her, had to leave village Asal Suleman. He took up residence at village Karor, district Muzaffargarh. The appellant demanded the hand of the daughter of Muhammad Boota deceased and Mst. Hussaina (P. W. 7) for having her as second were. However, he did not get a favourable response in this behalf from the deceased. In order to retaliate he approached the deceased, sometime in the end of the month of October or in the beginning of the month of November, 1975, and persuaded him to go along with him to district Muzaffargarh for cultivating land which as he gave out he had acquired on lease. The deceased accompanied the appellant to District Muzaffargarh. Nawab Khan (P. W. 10) and Lal (P. W. 12) were present in the house of the deceased when the appellant and the deceased left together for Muzaffargarh District.
3. On the 9November, 1975, at about noon, one Qadir Bakhsh (P. W. 2) noticed dead body of an unknown person, which afterwards turned out to be the dead-body of Muhammad Boota deceased, on the bank of Muzaffargarh canal. There was a cut in the neck. He went to Police Station, Mahmood Kot and lodged the report, Exh. P. B. At 12-30 p.m. Muhammad Yousaf, Sub- Inspector of Police and Station House Officer, Police Station Mahmood Kot, P. W. 20, after recording the report, Exh. P. B. Visited the place where the dead body was lying. He prepared the injury statement of the dead body, Exh. P. N. And the inquest report, Exh. P. O. He collected blood-stained earth from the spot, made it into a sealed parcel and took it in his possession vide memorandum.
Exh. P. L. He secured from near the dead body chadar, Exh. P. 3, shirt, Exh. P. 4, turban, Exh. P. 5, pair of shoes, Exh. P. 6/1-2, and took them in his possession vide memorandum, Exh. P. J. He found the knife, Exh. P. 7, lying in the canal and seized it vide memorandum, Exh. P. M.
4. He despatched the dead body to the Civil Hospital, Muzaffargarh, for post-mortem examination.
Photograph, Exh. P. F. Of the dead body was also taken.
5. Dr. Muhammad Afzal, Medical Officer, District Headquarters Hospital. Muzaffargarh, P. W. 6, performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on the 10th November, 1975, at 9-00 p.m.
And found the following injuries:-
(1) The neck was cut transversely and the wound was situated above the level of thyroid cartilage and measured 5" x 3--- x 3". Main blood vessels and trachea and oesophagus were completely cut with other tissues and muscles.
(2) 1/2" above injury No. 1 a cut 4" x 1--" x 2" was present on the left side of the neck.
(3) A cut 2--" x 1/2--" below tower lip.
(4) A cut 1" x --" x ----- on left cheek.
(5) A cut 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on chin.
(6) A cut 2" x --" x --" near left angle of mouth.
(7) A cut 5" x --" x 1" across the back of the neck.
(8) A cut 1" x 1/3" below right mandible.
(9) A cut 2" x --" x --" on right shoulder.
(10) A cut 1" x --" x 1/4" x --` on terminal pharynx of right little finger.
(11) A cut 1" x -- " x --" just above left clavicle.
(12) A cut above left nipple.
(13) A stab wound 1" x --" going into the abdomen and was situated in left epigastrium.
Larynx and trachea were cut completely. The other organs were healthy. All the injuries were ante- mortem and had been caused with sharp-edged weapon. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were grievous and were sufficient, individually as well as collectively, to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Other injuries were simple in nature.
6. As the deceased did not return home for about three months, his were, Mst. Hussaina (P. W. 7), became restive and reported the matter to the Police giving details of how the appellant had taken him away to district Muzaffargarh. Her statement, Exh. P. E., was reduced into writing by Muhammad Ashraf, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Kahna, on the 1st February, 1976, at 2-00 p.m. On the basis of Exh. P. E., the formal first information report, Exh. P. Q. Was registered at 2-20 p.m., the same day. Mst. Hussaina (P. W. 7) produced letters, Exhs. P. H/l. P. H/3, P. H/5, P. H/7, purported to have been addressed by the deceased to her, and envelopes, Exhs. P. H/2, P. H/4 and P. H/6, which they were received by her before Muhammad Ashraf (P. W. 21) who took them in his possession vide memorandum, Exh. P. H.
7. On the 5th February, 1976, the appellant per chance came to the house of the deceased. Mst.
Hussaina (P. W. 7), who was already apprehensive, sent a word to Muhammad Ashraf (P W. 8) and Mukhtat Ahmad (P. W. 9) about the arrival of the appellant. Muhammad Ashraf (P. W. 8) and Mukhtar Ahmad (P. W. 9) soon arrived and interrogated the appellant who confessed that he hadth killed the deceased. They produced the appellant before Muhammad Ashraf, Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police, Police Station Kahna, P. W. 21.
8. The appellant took Muhammad Ashraf (P. W. 8) to the place on the bank of canal, within the jurisdiction of police station Mahmood Kot in Muzaffargarh district, where he stated he had killed the deceased. Muhammad Ashraf (P. W. 8) went to Police Station Mahmood Kot and found that case touching the murder of the deceased, who was not known at the moment his dead body was found had already been registered at that police station. Muhammad Ashraf (P. W. 8) and Mukhtar Ahmad (P. W. 9) identified from the photograph of his dead body produced by the police of Police Station Mahmood Kot that it was Muhammad Boota deceased.
9. During the investigation the police came across Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 16) and Muhammad Saghir Khan (P. W. 17) who were stated to have written letters, Exh. P. H. 3, and Exh. P. H/7, on the dictation of the appellant, Muhammad Nawaz also wrote out address on the envelope, Exh. P. H/2.
These letters were written and sent after the death of the deceased.
10. The appellant denied point blank having abducted the deceased or killed him. He also denied having made any extra-judicial confession before Muhammad Ashraf (P. W. 8) and Mukhtar Ahmad (P. W. 9). He did not acknowledge that the letters, Exh. P. H/3 and Y. H/7, were got written by him by Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 16) and Muhammad Saghir (P. W. 17), He gave a lie to the story that he was eager to marry the daughter, of the deceased and wanted to wreak vengeance upon him when he refused to give her in marriage to him. As a matter of fact he said that Muhammad Boota deceased was not known to him. He stated that he had abducted Mst. Naziran, his present were, who was an aunt of Mukhtar Ahmad (P. W. 9). He added that in 1974, Muhammad Ashraf (P.
W. 8) and Mukhtar Ahmad (P. W. 9) and his brothers-in-laws had gone to Karor and taken away his were with them on the pretext of seeing her relations but they bad not let her come to him again.
According to him he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights against her which suit was decreed ex parte. He further stated that getting an opportunity Mst. Naziran had again joined him and on that account his in-laws were annoyed with him and had falsely implicated him in this case. He did not choose to produce any evidence in defence.
11. At the trial of the case the appellant was charged first with abducting Muhammad Boota deceased in order that he be murdered, secondly, with committing murder of the deceased and thirdly, with making evidence of the murder of the deceased disappear in order to screen himself from legal punishment. The learned trial Judge formed the view that only the first head of the charge was proved against the appellant, the other two heads of the charge could not be said to have been established beyond doubt. Accordingly he convicted and sentenced him as indicated in the beginning of the judgment.
12. Identification of the dead body of the deceased is beyond dispute. His death is confirmed. Mst.
Hussaina (P. W. 7), Nawab Khan (P. W. 10) and Lal (P. W. 12) who are not shown to bear any hostility towards the appellant. Mst. Hussaina bore testimony to the fact that the appellant had requested that her daughter should be married to him but his request had not been acceded to. She deposed that on his last visit to her house the appellant had abducted her deceased husband to accompany him to Muzaffargarh district and that her husband and the appellant had left the house in the presence of Nawab Khan (P. W. 10) and Lal (P. W. 12). Nawab Khan and Lal confirmed that the appellant and the deceased had left for Muzafargarh district. Thereafter the deceased was never seen alive by Mst. Hussaina or for that matter by Nawab Khan and Lal. There is nothing to doubt the veracity of these witnesses.
13. Muhammad Nawaz (P W. 16) and Muhammad Saghir Khan (P. W. 17) are quite independent persons and had no enmity whatever with the appellant. Muhammad Saghir Khan (P. W. 17) is a postman. Muhammad Nawaz said that he had written the letter, Exh. P. H/3, on the dictation of the appellant also had written the address on the envelope, Exh. P. r./2, at his instance. Similarly, Muhammad Saghir Khan (P. W. 17) inscribed the letter, Exh. P. H/7, on the instructions of the appellant. These letters were written after the death of the deceased. It seems that the appellant wanted to give impression to Mst. Hussaina by sending these letters that the deceased was still alive. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 16) and Muhammad Saghir Khan (P. W. 17). Placing credence upon their testimony would make the intention of the appellant to be questionable.
14. Even if the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant before Muhammad Ashraf (P. W. 8) and Mukhtar Ahmad (P. W. 9) is excluded from consideration the fact remains that it was the appellant who took the deceased along with him and after few days he was found dead murdered. The appellant's action of getting letters written on behalf of the deceased by Muhammad Nawaz (P. W. 16) and Muhammad Saghir Khan (P. W. 17) and sending them to his home for creating an impression that he was still alive links him with the commission of offence in respect of the deceased. It was on the false pretext of culti--vating agricultural land that the appellant abducted the deceased. His death shortly thereafter leaves no room for doubt that the appellant had abducted him in order that he might be murdered or might be so disposed of as being put in danger of being murdered. The rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Abdul Sattar v.
State (PLD 1976 SC 404) squarely applies to the facts of this case. The appellant has been rightly convicted. The way he abducted the deceased by deceitful means and the way he met his death render the appellant liable to the punishment awarded to him. There is no room for interference with the appeal which is dismissed. The appellant will be informed in Jail.