The brief facts leading up to this revision application are that deceased Mst. Ramzano was married to respondent No. 2 Riasat Ali somewhere in the year 1974. On account of disparity in their age Mst.
Ramzano being much older than respondent No. 2 Riasat- Ali she became immoral. On 23rd October, 1979 she went to visit the house of her father complainant Shahmir and she returned to her husband's house to celebrate Eidul Azha after it was agreed that she would be sent back to her father's house after celebrating Eidul Azha. Soon after, the complainant Shahmir came to know that she had disappeared from the house of her husband Riasat Ali. He, therefore, went to the house of Respondent No. 2 but did not find anybody in the house. Subsequently, Riasat Ali came to his house and called the complainant Shahmir and P.Ws. Muhammad Siddique, Bashir, Nabi Bux and Qasim to his house and confessed before them that he had caused the death of Mst. Ramzano by strangulating her and causing her hatchet blows and had thrown her dead body in the canal due to suspicions and household disputes. The complainant Shahmir went to the Police Station Digri and lodged F. I. R. On 2nd November, 1979. The Respondent No. 2 Riasat Ali was arrested and statements of the witnesses under sections 161 and 164, Cr. P. C. Were recorded. Judicial confession of the respondent No. 2 was also recorded by the First Class Magistrate on 5th November, 1979 wherein the respondent No. 2 has stated that on the night of 30th and 31st October, 1979 he saw Mst. Ramzano carrying on illicit intercourse with her paramour Naik Muhammad Khaskheli. He, therefore, caused her death by strangulating her and by causing her hatchet blows on account of grave and sudden provocation and that he had thrown her dead body in the canal. The Respondent No. 2 was challaned for an offence under sections 302 and 364, P. P. C. After usual investigation and was ultimately fired in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge Mirpurkhas. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the Respondent No. 2 under section 304(1), P. P. C.
For having caused the death of deceased Mst. Ramzano due to grave and sudden provocation.
The Respondent No. 2 pleaded guilty to the charge and the learned Sessions Judge convicted him on his own plea of guilt and sentenced him to suffer R.
1. For a period of three years. He also directed him to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000 to the heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer R.
1. For a period of six months more. The complainant Shabmir has challenged the propriety of this judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the Respondent NO. 2 in this revision application filed under section ?45 read with 439, Cr. P. C. He has prayed for setting it aside and remanding the case for retrial to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge.
2. I have heard Mr. Abdul Hamid Khan, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Jabbar for Respondent No. 2. Mr. Niaz Ahmed for the State remained absent without intimation.
3. The contentions raised on behalf of the applicant are that the learned Sessions Judge failed to take into account the evidence available against the Respondent No. 2 before framing charge against him under section 304(1), P. P. C., and that the police has failed to conduct fair investigation in the case which fact was brought to the notice of the authorities. He has also contended that the sentence passed against the Respondent No. 2 was inadequate and, therefore, the impugned judgment be set aside and retrial be ordered. These contentions have been repelled on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 alleging that the learned Sessions Judge committed neither any illegally nor irregularity and the proceedings taken by him were warranted by procedure and law and were based on the evidence available before the Court.
4. What I find that the material evidence available before the learned Sessions Judge to act on, for the purpose of framing charge was F. I. R. Lodged by complainant Shahmir the father of the deceased Mst. Ramzano, 164, Cr. P. C. Statements of the witnesses Muhammad Siddique, Bashir, Nabi Bux and Qasim and the judicial confession of the Respondent No. 2 Riasat Ali recorded by Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M. Digri on 5th November, 1979. The judicial confession discloses that the Respondent No. 2 caused the death of the deceased Mst. Ramzano on account of grave and sudden provocation as he found her in compromising position with her paramour Nek Muhammad Khaskheli. He gave the details of the incident there into the effect that he often used to find her missing during night time and on asking her she used to reply that she used to go to the jungle to case herself. He has stated therein that on the night of the incident between 30th and 31 st October, 1979 as she went to the jungle he followed her and found her in compromising position with Nek Muhammad Khaskheli who was committing sexual intercourse with her. He attacked both of them but Nek Muhammad escaped and he killed Mst. Ramzano by strangulating her and causing her hatchet blows and threw her body in the canal. This version finds support from the F. I. R. Which clearly shows that the Respondent No. 2 confessed before complainant Shahmir, and P. Ws.
Muhammad Siddique, Bashir, Nabi Bux and Qasim that he had caused the death of Mst. Ramzano due to suspicion and household disputes. Though the above-mentioned witnesses did not talk of the Respondent No. 2 having confessed to them that he caused the death of his wife Mst. Ramzano due to suspicion and household disputes, but complainant Shahmir has clearly stated in the F.
1. R.
That he confessed to them that he had caused the death of the deceased Mst. Ramzano on account of suspicion and household disputes. The version of the complainant Shahmir father of deceased Mst. Ramzano in the F. I. R. Is earlier in time than the version of the above-mentioned witnesses disclosed in their statements recorded under section 1.64, Cr. P. C. The version of the complainant Shahmir in the F. I. R.,.Therefore, should be considered more reliable than the version disclosed by the above-mentioned witnesses in their statements recorded under section 164, Cr. P.
C. It would, therefore, appear very clear that the version disclosed by the Respondent No. 2 in his judicial confession recorded soon after the incident and his arrest, receives corroboration from the version disclosed in the F. I. R. Lodged by the father of the deceased Mst. Ramzano.
5. There is no other evidence available on the record. On the admitted facts of the case, there is no eye-witness to the incident and possibly there could be no eye-witness to the incident in the circumstances the incident took place. The contention raised on behalf of the applicant to the effect that the name of the Respondent No. 3 Yasin who is alleged to have abetted the crime was not recorded by the police in the F. I. R. Is not supported by any evidence or circumstance on the record. The further contention raised on his behalf to the effect that the police did not conduct fair and impartial investigation is also not supported by any material or circumstances available in the evidence. The contention on his behalf to the effect that the learned Sessions Judge did not conduct the trial as warranted by law and r rocedure is also without substance for the reason that except the above mentioned material and evidence, no other material was available before the learned Sessions Judge to come to a conclusion to the effect that that Respondent No. 2 had committed an intentional murder of his wife Mst. Ramzano and not under grave and A sudden provocation. It would, therefore, be very clear that he very rightly framed charge under section 304(I), P. P. C. Against Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the evidence that was available on the record. The Respondent No. 2 pleaded guilty to the charge and under the procedure warranted by section 265 (e) (ii), Cr. P. C., he could in his discretion convict him on his own plea of guilt. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has failed to show that the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge was arbitrary or wrong. The contentions raised on behalf of the applicant, therefore, are based only on conjectures and surmises and on no evidence at all.
The F. I. R. Lodged by Shahmir, the father of the deceased Mst. Ramzano discloses that in the year 1974 Riasat Alt was married with Mst. Ramzano when his age was about 13-14 years. His age, therefore, at the time the impugned judgment was announced on 19th October, 1980 resulting in his conviction and sentence must have been about 20 years and finding him of young age the learned Sessions Judge very rightly exercised his discretion in awarding the sentence which in the circumstances, does not seem to be inadequate. Their impugned judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, therefore, does not call for interference.
6. The revision application is accordingly dismissed.