ABDUL MOBEEN LAKHO, J. Through this Criminal Jail Appeal, the appellant has assailed the legality and propriety of judgment dated 25.04.2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Umerkot in Sessions Case No.25/2012 (Re: The State v. Mano), arisen out of Crime No.28/2012 registered under section 302, P.P.C. at Police Station Umerkot, whereby he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. as Tazir and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay as compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. to the legal heirs of deceased.In case of nonpayment of compensation amount, he was ordered to suffer S.I. for six (06) months more.
Appellant was extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per FIR are that, complainant Premo Kolhi lodged FIR on 13.03.2012 at 1350 hours at Police Station Umerkot, alleging therein that he is Hari of Sher Khan Samejo, his daughter deceased Meena aged about 19 years was married with Manoo Kolhi about 8 months back. It is further alleged in the FIR that deceased Meena and Mano (present appellant) were residing with complainant in a separate house; accused Mano was also Hari of Sher Khan Samejo. The complainant further alleged that in exchange of marriage of his daughter Meena, Radhan was also married with his son Walho Kolhi but she (Radhan) was residing with her parents.
On 13.03.2012, in the morning, he, his brother Sono, his son Lakho and Soomar son of Ratno were harvesting oil seed crop, while Mano and Meena were harvesting sun flower crop in their field. At about 09:30 a.m., they heard cries in sun flower crop and saw the accused Mano causing, hatchet blows to his daughter Meena. It is further alleged in the FIR that he, Sono, Lakho and Soomar rushed there and saw that Mano caused hatchet blows on the neck of his daughter and then ran away along with hatchet. They saw that due to injuries blood was oozing and Meena died at the spot. The complainant narrated the incident to his Zamindar Sher Khan Samejo and brought the dead body at hospital, from where he went to P.S. and lodged FIR against above named accused.
3. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded 154, Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant prepared inquest report; .visited the place of wardat in presence of mashirs, and secured blood stained earth and sealed in presence of mashirs, arrested the accused, recovered the hatchet and prepared such mushirnamas. 161, Cr.P.C. statements of the PWs were recorded. Crime weapon, blood stained earth and clothes of deceased were sent to chemical examiner for examination and received positive report. After usual investigation challan was submitted against the accused under section 302, P.P.C.
4. Trial Court framed charges against the accused at Ex.3, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. At trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined following witnesses:
(i) Complainant Premo (PW-01) at Ex.5, who produced FIR at Ex .6,
(ii) Lakho (PW-02) at Ex.'7, (iii) Sono (PW-03) at Ex.8, (iv) Dr. Leela Pardeep (PW-04) at Ex.10, who produced post mortem report at Ex.12, (v) Tapedar Mehtab (PW-05) at Ex.20, who produced sketches at Ex.21-A to 21-C and letter at Ex.22 and (vi) IO/ASI Qurban Ali Rajar (PW-06) examined at Ex.23, who produced mashirnama of dead body, Danishtnama, inquest report, memo. of place of incident, memo. of arrest and recovery, mashirnama of recovery of clothes and report of chemical examiner at Exs. 24 to 30.
Thereafter, learned State Counsel closed the prosecution side vide his statement at Ex.31.
6. Trial Court recorded statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. at Ex.32, in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed his innocence. However, he did not examine himself on Oath nor led any evidence in his defence.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessment of evidence available on record, the trial court convicted the accused under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced him as stated above vide impugned judgment dated 25.04.2013.
8. Mr. Badal Gahoti, learned counsel for appellant contended that appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case; that prosecution case is full of doubts and infirmities, as such, accused deserves benefit of doubt; that all the PWs are interested and related to each other; that no independent person was examined to prove the charge against accused; that prosecution has failed to show the motive' behind the alleged incident; that sketch of the place of incident does not show that eye-witnesses were present at the place of incident which creates doubt in the prosecution story; that as per FIR Soomar was also present along with other eye-witnesses at the place of incident however, he was given-up by the prosecution without any reason; that nothing has been recovered from the possession of present accused/appellant; that there was unexplained delay in lodging of the FIR. He lastly prayed for acquittal of the appellant from the charge. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed on record the case law reported as Muhammad Asif v. The State (2008 SCMR 1001), Liaquat Ali v. The State (2008 SCMR 95), Muhammad Imran v. The State. (2020 SCMR 857), Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 129), Tarique Parvez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345), G. M. Niaz v. The State (2018 SCMR 506), Lal Khan v. The State (2006 SCMR 1846), Muhammad Ilyas and another v. Ameer Ali and another (2020 SCMR 305), Syed Saeed Muhammad Shah and another v. The State (1993 SCMR 550), Zafar v. The State and others (2018 SCMR 326), Muhammad Marsha v. The State (2018 SCMR 772) and Ali Gul v. The State (2020 MLD 952).
9. Conversely, Miss Safa Hisbani, learned A.P.G. Sindh while supporting the. impugned judgment submits that prosecution has hilly established its' casse beyond any reasonable doubt by producing consistent/convincing and reliable evidence and the impugned conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is the result of proper appreciation of evidence brought on record which needs no interference by this Court. She further contended that no major comradiction is brought on record to discard the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Lastly she prayed for dismissal of this appeal. In support of his contentions, she relied upon the cases reported as Zar Bahadur v. The State (1978 SCMR 136), Zahoor Ahmed v. The State (2007 SCMR 1519), Ali Sher v. The State and 3 others (PLD 1980 Supreme Court 317) and Muhammad Ehsan v.
The State (2006 SCMR 1857).
10. I have heard the learned counsel for appellant, learned A.P.G. for the State and perused the evidence so brought on record.
11. In order to prove the unnatural death of Slit. Meena, prosecution has examined- Dr. Leela Pardeep at Exh.10. W.M.O stated that on 13.03.2012, dead body of a girl aged about 20 years was referred to her by S.H.O. Police Station Umerkot for conducting the postmortem examination and report. The dead body was identified by Premo son of Mavji and Sono son of Mavji (father and uncle of deceased respectively). She started postmortem at 03.30 p.m. and finished the same at 05.30 p.m. On same date during postmortem lady Doctor found following injuries:- INJURIES:- 1. Incised wound 20.0 cm x 6.0 cm infront of neck at the level of hyoid bone, cutting major blood vessels of left side of trachea and oesophagus and cutting - vertebral column at the level of C-4 and C-5.
2. Incised wound 8.0 cm x 1.0 cm on muscle deep on left side of neck, above injury No.01.
3. Incised wound 5.0 cm x 1.0 cm on left side of neck skin deep, above injury No.02.
4. Amputation of left little finger at first inter phalycal joint.
From external as well as internal examination of the deceased body, Doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to bleeding from the injuries noted above, caused by sharp cutting object. The probable time elapsed between injuries and death was instant, while time between death and postmortem was about 06 to 08 hours. After examination she prepared postmortem report which she produced as Ex.12. In the cross-examination, integrity of doctor has not been questioned. I, therefore, hold that Sht. Meena died an unnatural death as described by the MLO.
12. The prosecution case primarily structured upon the ocular testimony of A complainant/PW-1 Premo, PW-2 Lakho and PW-3 Sono. According to complainant/P.W-01 Premo, who deposed that on 13.03.2013, he along with Soomar, Sono and Lakho was busy in cutting the Toorio crop in the lands of Sher Khan Samejo while present accused with his wife Sht. Meena (now deceased), who was his daughter was busy in sunflower field near Toorio crop. At about 09.30 a.m., he heard the hue and cry of his daughter Sht. Meena, upon which all of them rushed there and saw the present accused (appellant) causing hatchet blows to his daughter Sht. Meena. On seeing them accused made his escape good and they saw Sht. Meena lying dead in a pool of blood. Statement of the complainant was recorded under section 154, Cr.P.C. which was incorporated in FIR bearing No.28/2012 for offences under section 302, P.P.C. at Police Station Umerkot. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
13. PW-2 Lakho who is also the eye-witness of incident narrated the episode of incident in the same manner as stated by complainant/PW-1 Premo' in his evidence and he denied the suggestion that someone else had committed the murder of his sister and they have falsely implicated the present accused. He also denied the suggested that he had strained relations with accused.
14. PW-3 Sono who is also the eye-witness of the incident has narrated the same story as narrated by complainant and PW Lakho. He however, denied the suggested that he had strained relations with accused.
15. A careful analysis of the prosecution evidence furnished by the eye-witnesses has corroborated each other on all important aspects of the case i.e. the date, time and place of occurrence as well as the mode and manner in which the occurrence took place. They are also consistent on all the material aspects of the case and their evidence had remained unshaken and un-shattered.
Presence of eye-witnesses is established at the place of occurrence because the above PWs being natural witnesses were doing labour at the crop besides the crop where the accused and deceased Sht. Meena were doing labour. All the three eye-witnesses remained consistent and firm regarding their stance qua the role of the accused/appellant in perpetrating the alleged offence.
16. The deceased had been done to death by the appellant by causing hatchet injuries on her vital part body i.e. neck. The appellant had been arrested by the police on the same day i.e. 13.03.2012 and recovered one blood stained hatchet which was sent for analysis to the chemical examiner and the report was in positive. The injuries described by the Doctor were caused by sharp cutting object. The submission of the defence counsel regarding there being a delay in registration of the FIR is concerned, it is observed that firstly the dead body was shifted to the hospital and thereafter, the complainant after leaving the dead body at Hospital went to police station and lodged the FIR.
Explanation furnished by the complainant appears to be plausible. Coming to the submission of learned counsel for appellant regarding the witnesses being interested due to their relationship with the complainant and deceased is concerned, the same is no ground to discard their evidence as it is a well-established principle of law that mere relationship of an eye-witness with the deceased or complainant does not declare the eye-witness as interested, if his/her evidence is confidence inspiring and corroborated by an independent source. In this -respect, reliance is placed on the case law reported as Nasir lqbal alias Nasra and another v. The State (2016 SCMR 2152), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: "The testimony of both the eye-witnesses is confidence inspiring and from the facts and circumstances of the case, as mentioned above, they cannot in any manner be considered to be chance witnesses. Moreover, mere relationship or enmity is not always enough to declare a witness to be partisan or interested witness when his testimony is confidence inspiring and trustworthy. The motive of the instant occurrence is fully established at least to the extent of appellant Muhammad Ashraf being accused in the previous murder case of Naveed Akram who was extending threats to the complainant party to effect compromise and being proclaimed offenders such like modus operandi are usually adopted to clear themselves and to get rid of the murder cases and in the given circumstances the prosecution has amply succeeded to establish motive part of occurrence at least against appellant Muhammad Ashraf. Further we have observed that the medical evidence corroborate the ocular account. Recoveries have been effected which also corroborate the prosecution version. The parties were known to each other and FIR was promptly lodged all this rules out any possibility of substitution or consultation to falsely rope in or involve the accused persons ." .
17. Learned defence counsel attempted to argue that no reliance could be placed upon the evidence of complainant who in his cross-examination has contradicted his statement by stating that he did not see the accused giving hatchet blows to his daughter. It is not so, even otherwise, evidence of the two eye-witnesses namely Lakho and Sono is also consistent, straight forward, confidence inspiring and their presence at the time of incident has not been disputed by the defence, therefore the evidence of the both the eye-witnesses is sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the charge. In a murder case conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if the Court is satisfied that he is reliable. In the case reported as Niaz-ud-Din and anotherv. The State and another (2011 SCMR 725), the Honourable Supreme Court has held as under:
11. The statement of Israeel (P.W.9) the eye-witness of the occurrence is confidence inspiring, which stand substantiated from the "circumstances and other evidence. There is apt observations appearing in Allah Bakhsh v. Shammi and others (PLD 1980 SC 225) that "even in a murder case conviction" can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if the Court is satisfied that he is reliable." The reason being that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity which matters.
Therefore, we are left with no doubt whatsoever that conviction of Niaz-ud-Din was fully justified and has rightly been maintained by the High Court.
18. The re-appraisal of entire prosecution evidence establishes the fact that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the accused/ appellant through direct and medical evidence. The learned trial Court has discussed and dilated upon each and every aspect of the case and rightly sentenced the accused/appellant.
19. Furthermore, all the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution on all the aspects of the case and the defence could not point out any discrepancy or infirmity to dent the case of the prosecution. The defence also failed to prove that there is any enmity because of which the prosecution witnesses deposed falsely against the accused in the present case. The case law cited by learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and not helpful to the case in hand.
20. In view of confidence inspiring, straightforward, trustworthy and truthful evidence of the witnesses, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved its' case beyond any shadow of doubt against the appellant. Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence.
Consequently, instant Criminal Appeal No. S-51 of 2013 is without merit and hereby dismissed.