This criminal appeal and the connected Revision No. 75 of 1981 arise from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, whereby, he on 22-3-1981 convicted Haji Muhammad aged 30 years under section 302, P. P. C. For causing the death of Mst. Mukhtar Begum, his wife, on 9-6-1980 at 9 a. m. In the bazar of Chak No: 57/15-L and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3,000 in default thereof to further R. I. For one year with the direction that the amount of fine, if realised, be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr. P. C. By this judgment I propose to dispose of both the matters.
2. Dr. Abdul Ghafoor (P. W. 1) Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Mian Channu conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 9-6-1980 at 6. p. m. And found the following injuries on her person :-
(1) An incised wound 2 --x-- ' bone cut on the: left side of the head 3' from the left ear.
(2) Incised wound 3' x 1 --x 3--- on the left side of the neck cutting along all the muscles, blood vessels and vertebra of the neck.
(3) Incised wound 2 --x 1' x 2' on the left side of the neck --below injury No. 2 cutting all the structures of the neck.
(4) Incised wound 3' x -- --- x muscles deep on front of left thigh, cutting along shalwar with it which was marked and signed by me.
In his opinion the death was due to haemorrhage and shock collectively caused by injuries Nos. 1 to4 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante- mortem and caused by sharp-edged weapon. Death was immediate.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that seven years prior to the murder, the appellant was married to Mukhtar Begum deceased. Four months before the occurrence, the relations between the deceased and the appellant became strained whereupon she started living with her parents. This conduct of the deceased annoyed the appellant. It has been alleged that at the fateful time the deceased after having made purchases, was on her way to her house when she was surprised by the appellant who inflicted hatchet blows on her person and thereby caused her immediate death.
This occurrence was allegedly seen by Khuda Bakhsh (P. W. 6), father of the deceased, who was sitting under a keeker tree near the place of occurrence, Muhammad Mumtaz (D. W. 1) and Ahmad Yar (given up), who apprehended the accused on the spot. Ghazi snatched the hatchet P-4 from the appellant. Leaving the appellant in the custody of Ghazi and others, Khuda Bakhsh (P. W. 6) left for the police station Mian Channun where he lodged the F.
1. R. Exh. P. D. At 11.30 a. m. The same day, which was recorded by Muhammad Ismail A. S. I. (P. W. 7). The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is '14 miles.
Muhammad Ismail A. S. I., the investigating officer reached the spot at 2 p. m. And arrested the accused at the spot. Ghazi produced before him the blood-stained hatchet P-4 which he had allegedly snatched from the appellant which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. E. The investigating officer found shirt P. 5 and Dhoti P. 6 worn by the appellant to be stained with blood.
He got the same removed and took into possession vide memo. Exb. P. H. After investigation, the appellant was challaned.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as witnesses. It is to be noted that the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F.
1. R., namely Ghazi, Mumtaz and Ahmad Yar were not produced by the prosecution and were given up as having been won over. The appellant produced Mumtaz, eye-witness in his defence as D. W. 1, who stated that the appellant had not caused any injury to the deceased in his presence and that he did not apprehend the appellant on the spot.
The above statement of facts would show that the fate of the prosecution case hinges upon the credibility of the evidence of Khuda Bakhsh (P. W. 6), the father of the deceased and the weight to be attached to the circumstances particularly to the arrest of the appellant on the spot ; removal of blood--stained clothes from his person ; the recovery of blood-stained chhuri which was allegedly snatched from him and the positive Chemical Report.
5. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. Denied all the incriminating circumstances. He stated that Khuda Bakhsh (P. W. 6) was inimical towards him and he was involved falsely.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt ; Khuda Bakhsh P. W. Being related to the deceased and chance witness is not dependable or and that the circumstantial evidence also fails to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime.
7. As against this the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, while supporting the judgment of the trial court has submitted that conviction may be sustained on the solitary statement of Khuda Bakhsh supported by the circumstances.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. I find that the eye--witnesses, namely Mumtaz, Ghazi and Ahmad Yar were given up as having been won over and, as such, solitary eye-witness, namely Khuda Bakhsh, was available with the prosecution who was examined as P. W. 6.
Kbuda Bakhsh has stated that the deceased was married to the appellant seven years before the occurrence and out of the wedlock there were two daughters and one son. As far the motive, he has stated that four months prior to the occurrence, the deceased came to his house because the appellant had beaten her. He further stated that at the fateful time he was sitting along with Ghazi under a keeker tree. He saw the deceased returning from the shop of Hassan Bakhsh after having made some purchases and when she reached near the shop of the appellant she was suddenly attacked by him with hatchet. He and other witnesses, namely Ahmad Yar, Ghazi and Mumtaz.
Rushed to the spot, witnessed the occurrence and caught hold of Haji Muhammad accused appellant along with blood-stained knife which was snatched from him by Ghazi P. W. He found that the deceased had' succumbed to the injuries. Leaving the appellant under the custody of the witness, he left for the police. Station. He supported the recovery of blood--stained hatchet P-4 and stated that the same was taken into possession by the Police vide memo: Exh, P. E.
The Investigating Officer Muhammad Ismail A. S. 1., in the inquest report Exh. P. B. Which he prepared on the spot has stated in column pertaining to the brief facts, that when he reached the pot he found the eye-witnesses, namely Mumtaz, Ghazi and Ahmad yar with the appell4nt and the hatchet P-4 there. The recovery memo. Of hatchet P-4 which was thumb marked by Khuda Bakhsh has been supported by Khuda Bakhsh and Muhammad Ismail investigating officer. As far the recovery of blood-stained clothes of the appellant, the attesting witnesses, namely Ghazi and Mumtaz were given up as having been won over and the investigating officer alone has supported it.
Mumtaz when examined as D. W. 1 has admitted that he had .Signed the recovery memo. Exh. P. H.
Of the blood-stained clothes of the appellant but stated that the police had obtained his signatures on blank paper. He also admitted in cross-examination that the appellant is the son of the sister of his mother-in-law.
I have .'attended to the criticism of the learned counsel for the appellant with care. Doubtless, Khuda Bakhsh is the father of the deceased but this relationship is not sufficient to discard his testimony. 'I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that Khuda Bakhsh was a chance witness. Khuda Bakhsh is the resident of same Chak and he has given plausible reason for his presence near the plate of occurrence at the time of incident. He promptly lodged the F. I. R. ,wherein he has stated about the private arrest of the appellant by him and the other witnesses. I find. That two daughters and one son of his deceased daughter are living with him and, as such, to me, he can safely be regarded as incapable of false implication of his son-in-law whose affection and protection is very much needed by the children. He cannot be termed as an interested and inimical witness simply because he has in a very straightforward manner admitted that he bore grudge against the appellant because of the' earlier incident i. e: that four months prior to the occurrence his daughter came to his house as the appellant had beaten her. It was a day time occurrence which had taken place in a bazar of the Basti and, as such, it cannot be believed that Khuda Bakhsh has substituted the appellant for the real culprit. It is well settled that guilt or innocence of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness. Under section 134 of the Evidence Act, it is the quality and not the" quantity with which the courts are concerned. In the instant case implicit, reliance can be placed on the statement of Khuda Bakhsh.
There is nothing inherently improbable or contradictory in ocular account of this witness who is the resident of the locality and have no motive to give false evidence against the appellant. If the prudence or the safe administra--tion of justice still requires corroboration the same is amply available in the form of circumstances which tend to satisfy the mind that the Khuda Bakhsh has spoken nothing but truth. These circumstances are that the appellant was apprehended at the spot, whose clothes were found stained with human blood. In answer to question-No. 4. "Is it correct that you were apprehended at the spot by the P. Ws. And the hatchet was snatched by Ghazi P.
W:?", he simply stated: "that it is incorrect". In his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. `he has not stated that he was arrested. From a place other than the spot. He has not explained the circumstances in which he was arrested. He did not lead any evidence to show that he was arrested from a place other than the spot.
9. The criticism of the learned counsel for the appellant that no one from the vicinity has come forward to corroborate Khuda Bakhsh P. W. Is devoid of force inasmuch as the eye-witnesses who belonged to the same vicinity have been given up as having been won over. The appellant has also failed to produce Ahmad Yar and Ghazi, the eye-witnesses mentioned in the F. I. R. In his defence and did not produce any one from the bazar to state that the occurrence had not taken place in a manner as alleged by Kbuda Bakhsh. Muhammad Mumtaz D. W. 1 is closely related to the appellant and in spite of his admission that his signatures are very much there on the recovery memo. Exh. P. H., he refused to support the same. The reason, why he has resiled is, therefore, very much apparent. The attesting witnesses of the recovery memo of the blood-stained clothes removed from the person of the appellant having resiled, there remains the solitary statement of the investigating officer. It is well recognized that the police official is as good as any other witness.
In cross-examination the defence counsel has not been able to shake him.
For all these reasons, I am of the opinion . That the prosecution has brought home the guilt to the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant, Sahib Farooq Ali, has prayed for the enhancement of the sentence. I, however, find that the learned Sessions Judge has given a reason for not awarding the death sentence to the appellant The deceased had left the house of the appellant, who is admittedly her husband four months prior to the occurrence and she had started living with her parents. Khuda Bakhsh (P. W. 6) in his statement has stated that she had left the house of the appellant because she was beaten by him but the factum of the beating has not been mentioned by hire in the F. I. R. The real causes of the estranged relations and of her leaving the appellant are shrouded in mustery. She had left the house of the appellant four month prior to the occurrence and started living with her parents in the same Chak c at a distance of 50160 karms from the house of the appellant. The appellant did not attack her for four months and, as such, the immediate cause o murder is also not known. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the lesser penalty of imprisonment for life is sufficient to meet the case.
11. Resultantly, the appeal filed by Haji Muhammad appellant against his conviction and the revision flied by Khuda Bakhsh for the enhancement are dismissed.