Muhammad Tariq Abbasi, J.-This judgment shall "decide the above captioned criminal appeal and the murder reference as both are result of single judgment dated 30.9.2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, whereby in case FIR No, 164 dated 2.52008, registered under Section 302, PPC at Police Station Alpa, District Multan, Muhammad Ishaque (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) has been convicted under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to death with compensation of Rs, 2,00,000/-, payable to the legal heirs of Mst. Razia Mai deceased, in default to undergo SI for six months.
2. The facts are that Zahoor Ahmad (PW-4) made a statement/Fard Biyan (Ex.PD), contending therein that marriage of his daughter Mst. Razia Mai (deceased) was solemnized with Muhammad Ishaque (appellant), resident of Gulshan Kareem Town, Band Bohsan and his another son in law (Damad) namely, Muhammad Asim was also residing in the same house; on 01.5.2008, the complainant along with his brother Manzoor Hussain (PW-5) and Bashir Ahmed (given up PW) went to see his daughters and passed the night there; the appellant and the deceased slept in a room, whereas ' the complainant and the above named witnesses in the Courtyard; at about 4:00 a.m. a voice from the room was heard, hence they woke up and saw that the appellant was holding a rugine (Raiti) and inflicted it at the neck of Mst. Razia Mai and she became injured; the appellant while scaling over the wall fled away; Mst. Razia Mai was attended but found dead. The motive as described by the complainant was usual quarrel between the appellant and deceased and for the purpose of patching up, he and the witnesses arrived in the house.
3. On the basis of above said complaint, the case was registered through FIR (Ex.PC) and investigated. The appellant was found to be involved, hence challaned. The learned trial Court charge sheeted him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, hence the prosecution evidence was summoned and recorded. The prosecution produced as many as nine witnesses. The material witnesses and the evidence led by them was as under:--
(i) PW-1 Dr. Shagufta Khatoon Naqvi conducted the post-mortem examination of dead body of Mst.
Razia Mai through report Ex.PA and observed the following injury:- 1.5 cm x 1 cm punctured lacerated wound over the right side of neck 2 cm from midline below the level of thyroid cartridge. Wound was deep cutting skin muscle and main blood vessel of right side of neck i,e, carotid artery.
As per the doctor, the above said injury, which was antemortem and sufficient to cause death, was result of immediate death.
(ii) PW-4 Zahoor Ahmad the complainant as well as an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence, narrated almost the same facts, as were stated by him in the complaint (Ex.PD)
(iii) PW-5 Manzoor Hussain another eye-witness of the alleged occurrence supported and corroborated the version of the above named complainant (PW-4). He also attested the memos.
Ex.PE, Ex.PF and Ex.PG, through which blood stained earth, Raiti (P-1), and last wearing (P-2 and P-3) of the deceased were respectively taken into possession by the I.O.
(iv) PW-6 Muhammad Sadiq, SI, secured Raiti (P-1) through memo. Ex.PF, which was got recovered by the appellant.
(v) PW-9 Qamar Zia, SI investigated the case, during which he recorded statement of the complainant (Ex.PD); inspected the dead body and prepared inquest report (Ex.PH); drafted rough site plan (Ex.PJ); secured the blood stained earth and last worn clothes (P-2 & P3) of the deceased through memos. Ex.PE & Ex.PG.
4. When evidence of the prosecution witnesses was completed, the reports of the chemical examiner and serologist were tendered as Ex.PK, Ex.PL and Ex.PM and case for the prosecution was closed. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Section 342, Cr.P.C. And the questions emerging from the prosecution evidence were put to him but he denied almost all the questions, while pleading his innocence and false involvement in the case with the contentions that death of the lady was a result of falling on the ground and receiving injury by chance. He opted not to lead any, evidence in his defence or make statement under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
5. On completion of all the proceedings, the learned trial Court pronounced the impugned judgment in the terms mentioned above. Consequently, the matters in hand.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant is innocent and has falsely been involved in the case with mala-fide, despite the fact that the PWs were not available at the place of the occurrence and were introduced later on, who after due consultation made false statements against him; the statements of the witnesses are full of material contradictions, hence not believable; the witnesses are closely related to the deceased, hence their statements could not be given any importance; the motive alleged in the complaint could not be proved and established; the recovery of rugine (Raiti) has been falsely planted against the appellant; the case of the prosecution and charge against the appellant was not proved and established, hence he was entitled for acquittal and as such the impugned judgment towards his conviction and sentence is not acceptable under the law.
7. The learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the appeal, while declaring it result of correct appreciation and evaluation of the material available on the record, hence not interfereable.
8. Arguments of both the sides have been heard and the record has been perused.
9. Both Zahoor Ahmad, complainant (PW-4) and Manzoor Hussain (PW-5), categorically deposed that when they were sleeping in the Courtyard of the house, whereas the appellant and the deceased in the room, a voice was heard, hence they woke up and attended the spot, saw that the appellant while holding a rugine (Raiti) was available there, who within their view inflicted it at the neck of the lady, which resulted into her death then and there. The above named witnesses despite lengthy cross-examination remained confident and consistent towards involvement of the appellant for the commission of murder of the lady in the above stated manner. No material contradiction in their statements either could be pointed out or observed, hence the arguments made by the learned counsel for the appellant. That statements of the witnesses are full of material contradictions are nothing but a bald assertion.Although the witnesses are closely related to the deceased but their no grudge with the appellant could be brought on the record, hence their mere relationship is no ground to discard their testimony, which otherwise is confidence inspiring.
In this regard, reliance is placed in case Haji vs. The State (2010 SCM R 650), in which it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan that: "Both the ocular witnesses undoubtedly are inter se related and to the deceased, but their relationship ipso facto would not reflect adversely against the veracity of the evidence of these witnesses in absence of any motive wanting in the case, to falsely involve the appellant with the commission of the offence and there is nothing in their evidence to suggest that they were inimical towards the appellant and mere inter se relationship as above noted would not be a reason to discard their evidence, which otherwise in our considered opinion is confidence-inspiring for the purpose of conviction of the appellant on the capital charge being natural and reliable witnesses of the incident."
10.The witnesses have satisfactorily explained and justified their presence and availability at the spot. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses were not available at the spot is ill founded, hence discarded. It is not acceptableand believable that actual and real culprit was let of and the appellant was substituted because substitution is a rare phenomena and the said phenomenon does not exist in the matter in hand. In this regard, reliance is placed in case Allah Ditta versus The State (PLD 2002Supreme Court 52). The relevant portion whereof reads as under: "It is also to be noted that admittedly prosecution witnesses Muhammad Sadiq and two others have no enmity of whatsoever nature against Allah Ditta and they have also no reason to falsely involve him in the commission of murder of their brother Muhammad Sabir. In addition to it, it is also not possible for them that they would allow real culprit to go scot-free and falsely involve another person for the commission of the offence. Even otherwise it is well-settled by now that substitution of real culprit is a rare phenomenon in our system of criminal justice."
' The above mentioned ocular account has gained further support from the medical evidence led by Dr. Shagufta Khatoon Naqvi (PW-1) and the repot Ex.PA as during the post-mortem examination the injury described by PWs was confirmed on the dead body. On one hand, the prosecution has successfully established and proved involvement of the appellant towards commission of the alleged occurrence and on the other hand, the appellant had alleged the death of the lady by accidental falling but failed to substantiate the said version.
11. It has been brought on the record that the above mentioned weapon, through which the appellant caused the above mentioned injury to the lady, which resulted into her death was got recovered by him and sent to the laboratory. Reports Ex.PK and Ex.PM made by the chemical examiner and the serologist, whereby blood of human origin on the weapon was detected has further supported and corroborated the version of the prosecution that through the said weapon the appellant had caused injury to the deceased.
12. In the complaint (Ex.PD) as well as the FIR (Ex.PC) the alleged motive was given to be a quarrel between the appellant and deceased. The complainant (PW-4) as well as Manzoor Hussain (PW-5) also described the motive in the above mentioned terms. It is not believable that when the complainant and the witnesses ware available at the spot and the deceased as well as the appellant had gone to sleep in a room, the appellant done her to death due to family dispute/quarrel. It seems that the motive which resulted into murder of the lady at the hands of the appellant was something else, which either was not known to the complainant party or deliberately not brought before the Court and as such the actual motive which resulted into the occurrence is still shrouded in mystery.
13. For what has been discussed above, we have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved and established its case and the charge against the appellant and the learned trial Court rightly convicted him. As about quantum 'of sentence to the appellant, it is stated that non-establishment of the V alleged motive, coupled with the other facts and circumstances that the appellant is husband of the deceased and inflicted only one blow without any repetition, in our view are sufficient grounds to give him premium towards quantum of his sentence. Reliance in this respect is placed in cases Muhammad Imran @ Asif versus The State"
(201.3 SCMR 782) and Naveed @ Needu and others versus The State & others (2014 SCM R 1464). The relevant portion of case Naveed alias Needu (Supra) reads as under:-- "Upon our own assessm ent of the evidence available on there cord we have felt no hesitation in concluding that the specific motive set up by the prosecution had indeed remained for from being established on the record. The law recently declared by this Court in the cases of Ahmed Nawaz and another v. The State (2011 SCM R 593), Iftikhar Mahmood and another v.Qaisar Iftikhar and others (2011 SCM R 1165) and Muhammad Mumtaz and another v. The State and another (2012 SCM R 267) reiterates the settled and long standing principle that failure of the prosecution to prove the motive set up by it may have a bearing upon the question of sentence and in an appropriate case such failure may result in reduction of a sentence of death to that of imprisonment for life for safe administration of justice."
' Resultantly, the conviction of the appellant is maintained but his sentence is converted from death to imprisonment for life. The compensation awarded to him by the learned trial Court and sentence in its default is maintained and upheld. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is also extended to him.
14. Consequently, with the above said modification in sentence of the appellant, Crl. Appeal No, 693 of 2008is dismissed. Murder Reference No, 143 of 2009 is answered in negative and death sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is not confirmed.