' Haji Muhammad (23) resident of Diya Chokha Gharbi Kot Adu, District Muzaffargarh was tried for the murder of his wife Mst. Hasina Mai by Khawaja lhsanul Haq Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh. He was convicted under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. And sentenced to 3 years' R.I. And to a fine of Rs,500 in default to undergo 2 years' R.I. Further. The convict has come up in appeal.
2. Haji Muhammad (accused) doubted the fidelity of his wife whom he had married about 6 years before the occurrence in this case. On 30th of August, 1979 deceased's father Ghulam Rasool visited his daughter's village in connection with Qul ceremony of their relation Mst. Wazir Mai. As it had become late in the evening he decided to stay for the night in the house of his daughter. His son Ghulam Akbar and Abdur Rashid his nephew were with him. As they come close to the courtyard of the house of Haji Muhammad (accused), they heard cries. They rushed inside and saw Haji Muhammad (accused) kicking his wife and also beating her with a stick. The accused threatened the three eye-witnesses and thereafter fled away from there with the stick. Mst. Hasina Mai died at the spot. Haji Muhammad went to Police Station, Kot Addu situated at a distance of 8/9 miles away from the place of occurrence. He made report Ex.P.A. The following morning i,e, on 31-8- 1979 at 7' a.m. To P.W. 6 Khalid Latif, S.H.O., Police Station Kot Addu. After registering the case, the S.I.
Went to the spot, prepared the necessary documents and sent the dead body for autopsy which was held on 1-9-1979 at 7-30 a.m. By P.W. 4 Dr. Amir Bakhsh, Medical Officer D.H.Q. Hospital, Muzaffargarh, who found five contused wounds, in the lumbar region, chest, buttock and thighs of the deceased. There were two abrasions on her knees. Deceased's stomach and small intestine contained digested food matter. There was foecal matter in the large intestine. In doctor's opinion, death was due to shock caused by the multiple contusions which were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
3. The S.I. Arrested Haji Muhammad accused on 1-9-1979, who led to the recovery of stick P.1 from within his Kotha, It was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.F. After completing the investigation, the accused was sent up for trial. Denying the presence at the spot of the eye- witnesses, he explained his case as follows:- - "In fact I. Had come from the fields at about mid-night. I saw my wife in a compromising position with a stranger upon which I lost. Self-control and I gave beatings. The man ran away and my wife Mst. Hasina succumbed to her injuries."
' He led no evidence in defence.
4. For good reasons, 'trial Court disbelieved the prosecution evidence and accepted the defence version. It was contended that since the eyewitnesses had stage-managed their presence at the spot; in fact none saw the occurrence, it was therefore, a case of no evidence, as such statement of the accused alone was not enough for conviction. True, presence of the eye-witnesses, was a highly doubtful matter. Out of three eye-witnesses the two that appeared at the trial were not only closely related to the deceased, they were also residents of a distant village situated three miles away from the place of occurrence. The explanation of their presence there was that they had come to attend the Qui ceremony of their relation Mst. Waziran alongwith some other persons of their village and as it had become late, therefore, they stayed on while the other returned.
Strangely enough in the evidence of the informant, the Qui ceremony was over by 11 a.m. And they left the house of Mst. Waziran at sunset to spend the night at the house of the appellant. If the Qui ceremony was over at 11 a.m. The eye-witnesses had enough time to go back to their village the same day even after meeting the deceased. But on the other hand, in the F.I.R., deceased's father Ghulam Rasool informant had said that they were free from the Qul ceremony later in the night.
Further, I find that according to the informant, the Qul ceremony took place 10 days after the death of Mst. Waziran. This is not the normal practice because Qul ceremony is often fixed on the third day of the death. The aforementioned contradiction in the F.I.R. And the unusual delay in the Qul ceremony of Mst. Waziran created a serious doubt about the presence of the eye-witnesses at the spot. Another material contradiction in this case is that according to the informant, the appellant had doubted the fidelity of his wife, whereas at the trial, he denied having mentioned this as the motive for the crime instead he coined a different story i,e, the appellant had illicit connection with his uncle's we and since the deceased used to check him, therefore, he killed her. This he claimed to have mentioned in the F.I.R. It appears that this improvement was made to introduce a premeditated attack by the accused. There is yet another aspect of the case which cannot be over-looked i,e, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the eyewitnesses were three in number whereas the accused was alone. It would therefore, not have been difficult for them to overpower him particularly when the weapon with him was only a stick. It is also noteworthy that according to Ghulam Rasool P.W., when he reached the courtyard of the house of his daughter, he heard an alarm but at the trial he claimed to have heard the alarm from the distance of a furlong at Maghrib prayer time;- and according to PW.2 Abdur Rashid, they witnessed the occurrence between 12 mid- night and 1 a.m. This discrepancy in the time of occurrence created further doubt the presence of the witnesses at the spot. The deceased's stomach contained digested food which would indicate that she had the evening meal which had been digested and time of occurrence under the circumstances would be after mid-night. Although, P.W. Abdur Rashid had tried to cover this time gap by saying that the occurrence took place after mid-night but the effect of this improvement is that it has demolished the prosecution story creating a doubt about their presence in village of the deceased at the time of the occurrence. Under these circumstances of the case, it not safe to place reliance upon them.
5. There is yet another aspect of this case which supports the defence plea i,e, although, the Investigating Officer had denied that the appellant had come to the police station first and furnished the information to him and it was thereafter that he sent for the complainant and registered this case after preliminary investigation, but the complainant admitted under cross- examination that on his arrival at the police station, Haji Muhammad, accused was already present there and the S.I. Brought him - along in a wagon to the place of occurrence where they reached at about 4/5 a.m. And it was there that the S.I. Recorded the F.I.R. And obtained his thumb-impression.
On the other hand according to the S.I. He recorded the report at the Police Station. This contradiction not only support the defence plea but also adversely reflect of the investigation of this case. I am of the view that in all probability, the eye-witnesses had not seen the occurrence and the accused was the first informant of the occurrence.
6. I now take up the main argument in this appeal, that, it being an unwitnessed occurrence, the accused was entitled to acquittal and he could not be convicted only on his own admission. There is no force in the submission because appellant's own admission of guilt couple with the supporting circumstances of this case there was no error in law in convicting him under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. Deceased was the wife of the appellant. They lived together. There was none else living with them. The deceased was found dead inside the house upon the information given to the police by the accused himself. The weapon with which he killed his wife was produced by the appellant before the police. The first motive story as narrated by the informant was about appellant's suspicion about his wife's character. This story did fit in with the reason advanced by the accused for killing his wife. Keeping these circumstances in view this appeal fails. As to the sentence, I am of the view, that the period already undergone by him would meet the ends of justice. The sentence of fine is also remitted. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.