ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.-- Through this appeal under section 410, Cr.P.C. Read with section 25 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 Gulzar Ahmad appellant has called in question the judgment dated 06.09.2012 handed down by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No, 1, Faisalabad through which the appellant was convicted for an offence under section 336-B, P.P.C. For burning Mst. Ramzana Bibi and he was sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs,1000000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years. The appellant was also convicted for an offence under section 302(b), P.P.C. And was sentenced to death. He was also ordered to pay compensation in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-to the legal heirs of Mst. Ramzana Bibi deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. Or in default of payment of compensation to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. The appellant was also convicted for an offence under section 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and he was sentenced to death. He was ordered to pay fine of Rs,100000/- or in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months. Learned trial court has passed sentence of death against the appellant on two counts. The appellant has filed the instant appeal against his convictions and sentences whereas the learned trial court has sent a Reference under section. 374, Cr.P.C for confirmation or otherwise of the death sentence passed against the appellant which has been numbered as Capital Sentence Reference No,22-T of 2012.
We propose to decide both these matters together through this single judgment.
2. The story of prosecution as narrated in the FIR is that the complainant is resident of Tehsil Gojra and his sister was married with Gulzar Ahmad six months prior to registration of FIR who often used to give beating. About 10/12 days prior to the occurrence the sister of complainant made telephone call to him that Gulzar Ahmad demanded money from her and had tortured her upon which the complainant along with Naveed Aslam and Muhammd Farooq Shahzad came at Faisalabad and realized Gulzar Ahmad and went back. On 07.07.2012 at about 3.00 p.m. The accused with the intention to kill the sister of the complainant sprinkled kerosene oil upon her and put her on fire.
Upon hue and cry raised by the sister of the complainant the inhabitants of the Mohallah gathered there and they shifted her to the hospital for medical treatment but nobody informed the complainant. It is stated that on 11.07.2012 the complainant received information about the incident and he proceeded Allied Hospital, Faisalabad with Naveed Aslam and Farooq Shahzad. The sister of the complainant told the whole story to the complainant thereat. It is further stated in the FIR that the accused/appellant has victimized the sister of the complainant by putting her on firing by sprinkling kerosene oil upon her. On the application of the complainant formal FIR No, 508/12, dated 11.07.2012 was registered at Police Station DTC, Faisalabad in respect of an offence under section 336-B, P.P.C. After the death of the victim section 302(b), P.P.C. And section 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had been added to the FIR.
3. To substantiate its version at the trial, the prosecution produced as many as ten prosecution witnesses before the learned trial court. Muhammad Bashir, complainant and Naveed Aslam (PW6) appeared in the witness-box before the learned trial court to support the story mentioned in the FIR whereas Abdul Ghaffar (PW7) stated about extra-judicial confession made by the appellant.
Muhammad Naveed Aslam also stated about recovery of plastic bottle and matchstick. Nasrullah, Inspector (PW10) is the member of Joint Investigation Team who has stated about various steps taken by him as member of the Team during the investigation of this case. The medical evidence has been furnished by Dr. Saira Bano (PW1), Women Medical Officer, Allied Hospital, Faisalabad, who medically examined the deceased at her arrival at hospital whereas Lady Doctor Mobin Inam Paal, Demonstrator, Punjab Medical College, Allied Hospital, Faisalabad had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Ramzana Bibi on 22.07.2012. Rest of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses is more or less formal in nature.
4. The appellant in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Professed his innocence and pleaded false implication in the case. In reply to a question, "why this case against you and why the PWs deposed against you", he stated as under:-- "This is a false case, as against me. I have falsely been implicated in this case. In fact, it was my love marriage with Mst. Ramzana Bibi. Our life was very pleasant. I was painter of steel almiras.
On the fateful day, Mst. Ramzana Bibi washed my paint stained clothes and that her sleeves became smeared with kerosene oil. She lit the gas burner to prepare "CHAPATI" for me at the same moment fire caught her sleeves. I poured a tub of water to extinguish the fire, but her body had burnt badly. On my hue and cry, inhabitants of area gathered in my house and we brought her to Allied Hospital, Faisalabad through rescue 1122 vehicle. The complainant planned to involve me in this false case, so he created false evidence and got registered a false case against me. All the PWs are close relatives of the complainant. Statement of Mst. Ramzana Bibi is false and self-created story. I am innocent."
5. The appellant neither opted to produce defence evidence nor to record his statement under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C. In disproof of allegations leveled against him by the prosecution.
6. At the end of the trial, after thrashing the entire evidence and evaluating the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective versions, learned trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the 'appellant as mentioned in paragraph No,1 of this judgment.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned judgment is against law and facts and is result of misreading and non-reading of evidence available in this case. There is a delay of four days in registration of the FIR which shows that the matter was reported to the police after due deliberation and consultations. The appellant is innocent and he has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant due to family clash between the parties because the appellant had contracted love marriage with the deceased for which the complainant had grudge.
It does not appeal to a prudent mind that an accused who was empty handed burnt a lady while tiding her hands with rope. The conduct of the inhabitants of mohallah at the spot is also unnatural because nobody tried to apprehend the appellant at the spot so as to hand over him to the police.
There are glaring contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses who have also made dishonest improvements during the statements before the learned trial court. The prosecution witnesses are related and interested witnesses and no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution to corroborate their testimony. It seems improbable that a person would keep plastic bottle and matchstick so as to get it recovered and used against him in a criminal case. Thus the recovery in this case is planted upon the appellant. The defence plea of the appellant has not been taken into consideration by the trial court in the impugned judgment. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any doubt and the benefit of doubt is always given to the accused person. At the end both learned counsel for the appellant pray that the appeal of the appellant be allowed and he be acquitted from the charge.
8. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor General contends that the matter was reported to the police with sufficient promptitude as evident from the medico-legal certificate of the deceased who was brought to the hospital by the police. It is a daytime occurrence, the appellant is named in the FIR and specific role of sprinkling kerosene oil on the deceased and thereafter putting her on fire has been attributed to him therein. The role attributed to the appellant is borne out from the MLC and post-mortem examination report of the deceased Mst. Ramzana Bibi. The prosecution witnesses have also visited the house 10/12 days before the occurrence due to complaint made by the deceased highlighting his maltreatment with her, hence they are quite justified to depose before the learned trial court. Dying declaration of the deceased and evidence of extra-judicial confession of the appellant before Abdul Ghaffar (PW7) provide full support to the deposition made by Muhammad Bashir, complainant (PW5) and Naveed Aslam (PW6). Relation inter se is no ground to disbelieve the confidence inspiring evidence of the PWs. All the prosecution witnesses are consistent on each and every material point. There are some minor contradictions which cropped up due to passage of time and are not fatal to the prosecution's case. The medical evidence is in line with the ocular account. During the investigation of this case the plastic bottle with which the appellant poured kerosene oil and matchstick used for putting the deceased on fire have been recovered from him which provide sufficient corroboration to the case of the prosecution. The prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant and the learned trial court has rightly awarded sentence of death to the appellant. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General prays that the conviction and sentence of the appellant be maintained to meet the ends of justice.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, have given our anxious consideration to their arguments and have also scanned the record with their able assistance.
10. At the very outset both the learned counsel for the appellant start their arguments by highlighting delay of four days in registration of FIR which delay according to them obviously signposts that the matter was firstly consulted with some legal experts and thereafter the same was reported to the police by the complainant through application after due deliberations to falsely involve the appellant in this case. We have, however, given our anxious consideration on this particular aspect of the matter and have observed that due to lack of knowledge regarding happening of incident at Faisalabad the complainant who was resident of Tehsil Gojra was unable to report the matter in time rather Ex. PF is an important document wherein the arrival date and time of the deceased has categorically been mentioned when she was alive and admitted in the Allied Hospital for her medical examined by Doctor Saira Bano (PW1) wherein it has been written that she was admitted in the hospital on 07.07.2012 with Registration No, 99039, MLC No, 465/12 and DC issued on 22.07.2012.This document (Ex. PF) if analyzed with the touch stone of Ex. PE, i.e, the statement of deceased made before Imran Safdar Lak, Civil Judge (PW8) wherein the deceased had categorically mentioned the date of occurrence as 07.07.2012, then it has become quite apparent that the incident had taken place exactly on the date which is written in the FIR because none else but the deceased herself can tell the exact date of occurrence which fact propelled all other possibilities of delay in this case. Even otherwise, the prime consideration for the police and other inhabitants of the locality, who have shifted the deceased to hospital, was to save her life instead of reporting the matter to the police or registration of FIR. Therefore, the complainant has reflected a natural conduct in making application to the police for registration of FIR which is absolutely inapt with the prevailing circumstances at that time. Thus, we are quite confident in observing that in such a nasty situation, faced by the complainant and other relevant persons, there remained hardly any occasion for them to get assistance from any legal expert or deliberate upon the matter before registration of FIR or making application to the police. So the delay in this case is immaterial.
11. To prove the story set forth in the FIR the prosecution keeps in its fold two witnesses, i.e, Muhammad Bashir, complainant (PW5) and Naveed Aslam (PW6). It was a daylight occurrence wherein the appellant is duly named in the FIR by the deceased herself who has made B Dying Declaration before Imran Safdar Lak, Civil Judge (PW8) and specific role of pouring kerosene oil on the deceased after tiding her hands and putting her on fire had been attributed to him which role is duly borne out from the Medico-legal Certificate of the Mst. Ramzana Bibi and thereafter from her Post-mortem Examination. The story mentioned in the FIR is quite natural because in the Medico-legal Certificate of Mst. Rarnzana Bibi deceased (Ex. PA) especially in the column of removing the victim to the hospital the word, "police" is mentioned which fact further strengthen the case of the prosecution to the effect that at that time neither the complainant nor the appellant were present rather the deceased was shifted by the people of locality to the Police Station and then police took her to hospital for medical treatment. It was not first time on the fateful day that the deceased was maltreated by the hands of the appellant but even before 10/12 days of the occurrence the complainant (PW5), Naveed Aslam (PW6) and one Muhammad Farooq approached the matrimonial house of the appellant and advised him to remain cordial with the deceased and both the witnesses (PW5). & (PW6) were duly cross-examined on this point but they amply proved this fact by giving successful answers of various questions on this aspect. The mode of cross-examination upon the prosecution witnesses gives us a long way to infer that the appellant was leading an idleness life which create disturbance in matrimonial life of the deceased and appellant intentionally chose acute step of committing the incident to get rid of such family crises in a desperate manner.
12. While adducing evidence before the learned trial court both the witnesses, i.e, Muhammad Bashir (PW5) and Naveed Aslam (PW6) have duly proved the story mentioned in the FIR in so many words. All of them had unambiguously stated that it was the appellant who had put the deceased on fire after tiding her hands and making her helpless which fact creates a flagrant impression into the mind of this Court that the appellant after having made preparation to burn the deceased has committed the offences at a time when both the appellant and deceased were alone in the house.
Both the witnesses have correctly explained strained relations of the spouse and the manner as well as mode of taking place of the occurrence. They had remained consistent on each and every material point despite having undergone a lengthy cross-examination by the defence. More over nothing has been extracted from their mouth during cross-examination on c the eye-witnesses which would suggest that they were not in touch with the ugly matrimonial situation of the spouse prior to the occurrence or even after happening the occurrence in this case. Their evidence has extended adequate confidence to the learned trial court to be believed upon them and we have also acknowledged the quality of their truthfulness to believe them as dependable witnesses.
13. In addition to the evidence discussed by us in preceding paragraphs the most important evidence in this case is the Dying Declaration (Ex. PE) made by the deceased before Imran Safdar Lak, Civil Judge (PW8) wherein she has categorically levelled allegation upon the appellant explaining the whole story of commission of offence by the appellant on the fateful day. This story duly finds support from the contents of FIR, in the column of brief history of Ex. PA, Statement of the patient (available at page No, 58 of paper-book), Post-mortem Examination Report (Ex. PF), and Ex.
PF/2 prepared by Inspector (JIT) seeking permission for post-mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased. In support of the Dying Declaration Imran Safdar Lak, Civil Judge (PW8) also appeared in the witness-box before the learned trial court and he had affirmed the contents of Dying Declaration made before him by the deceased before her death. We would like to take a leaf from a reported judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan to believe the Dying Declaration in this case. In the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan the Dying Declaration was duly appreciated which was even recorded in shape of statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. By the police officer who later on appeared before the trial court and supported the contents of the same and he was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of. Pakistan as an independent witness, whereas in this case the Dying Declaration was supported by a learned Civil Judge who duly put his signature on the Dying Declaration and while appearing in the witness-box before the learned trial court he has sufficiently explained that the body of the victim was not in a position to put her thumb impression on Dying Declaration. Admittedly the learned Civil Judge has no concern whatsoever with either party so as to extend favour, rather he is considered by us as an independent witness who has fully supported the case of the prosecution. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Sikandar Shah v. Raza Shah and another (2015 SCM R 10). Apart from the above witness one Abdul Ghaffar had also appeared as PW7 before whom the appellant has made extra-judicial confession and he has asked him to seek pardon for him from the complainant and other parents, etc of the deceased. He while appearing before the learned trial court as PW7 has provided full support to the case of the prosecution and also stated about the confession of the appellant made before him. He was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence but he remained stick to his stance and amply proved the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before him. Thus, the evidence discussed by us in this paragraph evaporate all other possibilities for the murder of deceased except stated by the prosecution witnesses before the learned trial court.
13. Admittedly Muhammad Bashir, complainant (PW5) is brother of the deceased namely Mst.
Ramzana Bibi so it is not expected from such close kith and kin to falsely involve present appellant in this case. The appellant is a sole culprit in this case who has done to death his wife/deceased in a merciless manner when she was alone in her matrimonial house with the appellant so it is not a case of mistaken identity of the appellant or his false implication. Thus, by any stretch of imagination it can be said with all degree of certainty that the defence could not shatter or smash the credibility of the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses before the learned trial court.
If this is not enough Naveed Aslam (PW6) was an independent witness and admittedly he has not previous or bitterness with the appellant to falsely involve him in this case. Even no reason for extending favour to the complainant, if any, has been brought on record by the defence to disbelieve his evidence. He too had incriminated the appellant with the commission of murder and pointed accusing fingers towards him as the sole culprit who had perpetrated the offence and slipped away from the scene after putting the deceased on fire till his arrest. So the trustworthy evidence adduced by all the prosecution witnesses had motivated our evaluation to put a credible reliance upon the same and believed it as unequivocal.
14. Although Muhammad Bashir (PW5) is closely related to the deceased yet his deposition before the learned trial court remained above-board. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the story mentioned in the FIR has been supported by the interested prosecution witnesses and no independent corroboration has been provided by any independent witness. We, however, remained unable to appreciate this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant because the law has now well settled on the point that the fact of relationship of the witnesses with the complainant or with the deceased would not be sufficient to smash the evidence adduced by such witnesses or to disbelieve their credibility as well as legal sanctity. Such PWs can be believed if intrinsic worth of their testimony inspires confidence of the court. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Ahmad and another v. The State and others (1997 SCM R 89).
Even otherwise the rule requiring independent corroboration of testimony of related or interested witnesses is a rule of prudence which is not to be applied rigidly in each case especially when the courts of law do not feel its necessity. There can be cases like the present one where implicit reliance can be placed on the testimony of related witness if it otherwise inspiring confidence of the Court.
15. The medical evidence in this case had been furnished by PW1, lady Dr. Saira Bano, Women Medical Officer, Allied Hospital, Faisalabad who firstly had medically examined the deceased when she was brought to hospital for medical treatment and according to her the deceased was semiconscious and was in a position to speak and deceased herself given detail of her burnt by her husband/appellant which fact is evident from examine-in-chief and cross-examination of PW1.
She has found whole body of the deceased burnt through kerosene oil from above her knees. Her statement also finds support from the statement of Lady Doctor Mobin Inam Pall, Demonstrator, Punjab Medical College, Allied Hospital, Faisalabad (PW9) who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 22.07.2012 at 12.30 pm. While appearing in the witness box both the lady doctors had unambiguously explained the physical condition of the burnt body of deceased, the material used during the occurrence, the time between the occurrence and the death. In spite of cross-examination upon both doctors the defence could not extract anything adverse to the prosecution's case which could refute the medical evidence in this case. Thus, we have come to a stalwart conclusion that the medical evidence in this case is absolutely in line with the ocular account and the same has provided full support to the same.
16. The defence has taken a particular plea that it was just an incident and not murder of the deceased because in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant had tried to establish his innocence by stating that he was painter of steel almiras and Mst. Ramzana Bibi deceased was washing his clothes due to which her sleeve were smeared with kerosene oil and when she was preparing bread for the appellant she was caught by fire at the time of igniting gas burner. In his statement the appellant has particularly stated that he along with other inhabitants of locality transported the deceased to Allied Hospital by 1122 vehicle but we are afraid his defence plea is defeated from the Medico-legal Certificate of the deceased (Ex. PA) wherein it has been mentioned that the deceased has been shifted to hospital by the police and not by the appellant.
The appellant has also failed to establish that he did try to put off the fire by throwing water on the deceased or by any other means at the time of occurrence. This bald plea taken by the appellant has not been substantiated by any material whatsoever because neither he had produced any defence evidence in this regard nor he opted to appear himself in the witness-box to adduce evidence under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The defence plea creates an implied impression into the mind of the Court to understand that the same have been introduced by the appellant just to wriggle out from criminal prosecution of this case. Thus, we have no manner of doubt in our mind to discard such pleas taken by the defence. So far as vehement argument of the learned counsel for the appellant highlighting minor discrepancies or dishonest improvement in the statements of eye-witnesses are concerned, suffice it to observe here that such like minor discrepancies can crop up with the passage of time, slip of tongue and the same are not material enough to be considered when otherwise all surrounding and attending circumstances of the case do not provide support to the same. Thus, we are of the confident view that the prosecution witnesses appeared before the learned trial court in support of the prosecution story set forth in the FIR inspires our confidence and the same is palpably proved beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt.
17. During the investigation of this case the appellant had led to recovery of plastic bottle (P2) through which he poured kerosene oil on the deceased after tiding her hands and also the matchstick (P3) used by him to burn the deceased which have been taken into possession by the member of Joint Investigation Team, Nasrullah, Inspector (PW10) vide recovery memo Ex. PD.
Muhammad Naveed Aslam (PW6) while appearing before the learned trial court had duly supported the proceedings of recovery effected from the appellant in this case. Both these articles provide strength to the prosecution story set forth in the FIR. Thus, the recovery effected in this case provide full corroboration to the ocular account.
18. The motive set up by the prosecution in the FIR is a family dispute between the deceased and the appellant which ultimately culminated into strained relations between the spouse and formed basis for commission of the incident by the appellant. Muhammad Bashir and Naveed Aslam (PW5 & 6) respectively had adduced evidence in this regard which was sufficiently proved. So, in the backdrop of such a strained relations between the parties the motive set up by the prosecution has amply proved and provide sufficient support to the ocular account.
19. For what has been discussed above, an irresistible conclusion of the above discussion is that Gulzar Ahmad appellant is a desperate person who had committed the murder of his own wife after tiding her hands while pouring kerosene oil on her at a time when she was alone in the house.
He has acted in a merciless and ruthless way and indulged into a hardhearted occurrence which ultimately took the life of his wife for which a sense of panic definitely prevailed in the locality.
Normal penalty of murder defined in the statute is death and the appellant does not deserve any leniency. The prosecution has proved its case against the appellant without any reasonable shadow of doubt. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the convictions and sentences passed against Gulzar Ahmad appellant under sections 336-B/302(b), P.P.C. Read with section 7 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 vide judgment dated 06.09.2012 is, therefore, upheld and maintained.
20. In sequel to our discussion made above Capital Sentence Reference No,22-T of 2012 is answered in affirmative and the sentence of death is hereby confirmed.