Through this Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2016, Muhammad Irfan appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence. He was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianchannu for the offence under Section 302-B, PPC in case FIR No. 62 dated 13.03.2015 registered at Police Station Chab Kalan, Mian Channu, District Khanewal. On conclusion of trial, appel lant was convicted vide judgment dated 29.03.2016 and sentenced as undo` Convicted under Section 302(b), PPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with compensation under Section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the tune of Rs. 2,00,0001- to be paid by appellant to legal heirs of deceased or in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Benefit under Section 382-B, Cr .P.C. was extended to the appellant.
2. Complainant filed Criminal Revision No. 445 of 2016 seeking enhancement of appellant's sentence. Both the matters arising out of same judgment dated 29.03.2016, will be decided through this consolidated judgment.
3. FIR above mentioned was registered on the written application (Ex.PB) of Asghar Ali (PW-2), complainant real brother of the deceased who is resident of Kothi Nand Sing, Statement No. 8, Mianchannu. According to the FIR, Mst. Mafia deceased was married with Muhammad Irfan (appellant). The relations between spouses were strained.
On 12.03.2015 at about 01:30 p.m. Muhammad Irfan (appellant) made a telephonic call to the complainant stating that on account of bad attitude of Mst. Mafia he would going to murder her. The complainant requested him not to murder his sister and assured that he would bring back the deceased to his house. Subsequently , complainant consulted telephone call with his real brother Muhammad Akbar , sister and brother-in-law (Behnoi) Muhammad Shahid where-after they proceeded to the house of Muhammad Irfan (appellant) on motorcycles. On reaching the house of Muhammad Irfan, the door was opened by co-accused Muhammad Imran who rushed back caught hold hands of the deceased whereas Muham mad Irfan (appellant) cut throat of the deceased. The deceased started writing in agony . On arising hue and cry, inhabitants of the village gathered there while the appellant fled away from the spot.
4. Investigation was conducted by Muhammad Zafar SI (PW-7) who also received application of complainant on the basis of which FIR was registered. PW-7 Muhammad Zafar inspected the spot and secured last worn clothes vide recovery memo. Ex.PA. The blood-stained earth and Churri were sent to Punjab Forensic Science Agency for examination through Masood Ahmad 556/C2 (PW-8). He also recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, appellant was sent up to face trial whereas co-accused Imran was declared innocent and was placed in column No. 2 of report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. Appellant was charge sheeted, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. Thereupon prosecution evidence was recorded. As many as eight PWs were examined by prosecution whereas Muhammad Shahzad s/o Abdul Rasheed and Muhammad Ehsan s/o Muhammad Ali were given up being unnecessary and closed prosecution evidence on 09.03.2016 after tendering report of Punjab Forensic. Science Agency as Ex.PM. On completion of prosecution evidence statement of appellant was recorded under Section 342, Cr.P.C. He again pleaded innocence. Liaqat Ali s/o Hassan Muhammad appeared as DW-1, however appellant did not opt to appear under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
On conclusion of trial, appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned abov e, hence this appeal as well as revision.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Prosecution in this case has relied upon ocular account, medical evidence, recoveries and motive. I would like to re-appraise ocular account of eye-witnesses so as to ascertain their credibility . Ocular account was furnished by PW-2 Asghar Ali complainant and PW-3 Muhammad Shahid. PW-2 Asghar Ali stated that on 12.03.2015 at 10:00/10:30 p.m, Muhammad Irfan (appellant) made a telephonic call to him and told that attitude of his sister was not good and that he would kill her. He requested him not to kill his sister , he called his brother Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Shahid who came at his house. He informed them about the call of Muhammad Irfan (appellant).
After consultation they went towards the house of Muhammad Irfan (appellant). They reached at the house of appellant situated at Chak No. 108/15-L at about 3:30 a.m (night). They knocked the door of appellant five/six time, thereafter , appellant opened the door. Muhammad Irfan was found having Churri in his hand; they saw that Mst.
Mafia deceased was lying in injured condition on floor. Co-accused Muhammad Imran was standing there at the spot. They raised alarm and inhabitants of the locality gathered there, however both the accused fled away from the spot. PW-3 Muhammad Shahid also supported the version of complainant PW-2. Both the eye-witnesses were subjected to lengthy and searching cross- examination by defence but no major contradiction helpful to the defence could be brought on record. They remained consistent on material points. Both the eye-witnesses furnished details of the fateful incident. PW-2 Asghar Ali is (brother) of deceased, whereas PW-3 Muhammad Shahid is (behnoi) of complainant, as such, they .both are closely related to complainant as well as deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that both the eye-witnesses introduced in this case are closely related to the complainant as well as deceased and no independent person was introduced to support version of the complainant. In this respect, it is to be noticed that testimony of a close relative cannot be discarded merely on the ground of his relationship with complainant or deceased. The occu rrence in this case took place on. 12.03.2015 at 3/3:30.00 a.m and FIR was registered at 3:30 a.m; on the same night without any delay . Post-mortem examination on the dead body was conducted on the next day. The mode of 'occurrence coupled with the fact that testimony of both the eye-witnesses could not be shattered during cross-examination, are suggestive of their presence at the relevant time, as such, their deposition is worth reliance.
7. Medical evidence was furnished by PW-6 Dr. Benazir W.M.O who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mst.
Mafia. Four injuries on the body of deceased were noted which were attributed to present appellant Muhammad Irfan. As per opinion of Medical Officer, Injury No. 1/cut throat was fatal/cause of death. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was approximately immediate and between death and post-mortem within 36 hours. In such backdrop, post-mortem report fully corroborates ocular account as to locale of injuries, time of occurrence as well as weapon used for commission of crime.
8. On first spot inspection Muhammad Zafar S.I, PW-7 collected blood-stained earth under beneath the dead body of Mst. Mafia from the residential room, prepared sealed parcel and took the same into possession vide recovery memo. Ex.PC which was attested by Akbar AE and Muhammad Shahid PWs. He also prepared injuries statement and inquest report 'of the aforesaid dead body which' is Ex.PJ and Ex.PH respectively . He sent the dead body for post-mortem through Salma Shaheen 82/LC and Allah Ditta 909/C. He inspecte d the place of occurrence and prepared rough site-plan Ex.PK. He also recorded statements of PWs under Section 161, Cr.P.C. Appellant was arrested in this case on 16.03.2015. During investigation he got recovered a Churn which was taken into possession through recovery memo. P5, blood-stained lying in the heap of woods in the Courtyard of his house which was transmitted to office of Forensic Science Laboratory . In such backdrop, evidence of recoveries in this case also connects the appellant with the commission of alleged crime.
9. As far as motive for crime is concerned, only close relatives either from the side of the deceased or from the side of the accused had knowledge about the actual nature of relationship. The deposition of these two witnesses regarding the existence of strained relationship between the spouses is reliable piece of evidence.
10. For the above reasons, prosecution had proved charge against appellant beyond any shadow of doubt.
Therefore, findings of conviction recorded by learned trial Court in the impugned judgment are in line with evidence available on record, which are upheld. Appeal in hand is dismissed .
15. As regards Criminal Revision No. 445 of 2016 filed by complainant for enhancement of sentence of the appellant. Reasons recorded in the impugned judgment for awarding lesser punishment i.e. life sentence to the appellant are quite logical. As such, awarding death sentence in the case in hand is not appropriate. Revision No. 445 of 2016 is dismissed.