' Allah Ditta and Sabir Hussain were tried for the murder of Mst. Rasoolan Bibi by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. On 14th February, 1980 Sabir Hussain was convicted under section 302. P. P. C.
And sentenced to life imprisonment and to a fine of Rs, 7,000 in default to undergo five years' R. I.
Further. Allah Ditta was, however, acquitted. The convict has come up in appeal.
2. Imam Din died 7/8 years before the occurrence in this case leaving belaind 14 Kanals of land and two heirs namely Mst. Rasoolan Bibi (deceased) and Mst. Sardaran Bibi. A dispute arose between the two heirs. Mst. Sardaran Bibi was married to Allah Ditta (acquitted-accused) and lived with him in village Siwyun. She took the dispute before the Civil Court at Wazirabad. Her suit was still pending when the occurrence took place. Although Mst. Rasoolan Bibi was married but since she was divorced, she was living in the house of her father Imam Din. Muhammad Hussain alias Hussain Ali (informant) who was brought up by Imam Din (deceased) also lived in the same house. According to the prosecution, Mst.
Rasoolan Bibi's cattleshed came down due to the rains and she was going to rebuild the same with the help of Muhammad Hussain ; but Allah Ditta, and his wife Mst. Sardaran Bibi objected to the construction and said that they would settle the matter once and for all. Akhter Abbas and Nusrat Ali, P. Ws. Intervened and the matter was hushed up. While leaving, Allah Ditta, threatened that they would have forcibly take over the possession of the land had his son Sabir Hussain been there.
Further, according to the prosecution, on the following day i. e. 26th September, 1976 Mst. Rasoolan Bibi continued with the construction at 4 p. m. Allah Ditta, and his son Sabir Hussain armed with a hatchet came over to the house of Mst. Rasoolan Bibi. Sabir Hussain aimed a hatchet blow at Mst.
Rasoolan Bibi. Muhammad Hussain (Informant) tried to stop him but the blunt side of the hatchet hit Mst. Rasoolan Bibi on her face. Muhammad Hussain snatched the hatchet from Sabir Hussain.
Thereafter Sabir Hussain picked up a wooden log lying nearby and inflicted a blow with it on the head of Mst. Rasoolan Bibi who fell down. Muhammad Hussain caught hold the wooden log.
Ghulam Abbas and Nazar Abbas, P. Ws. Also came there. On seeing them, Sabir Hussain leaving behind wood log fled away. Muhammad Hussain leaving behind Mst. Rasoolan Bibi unconscious went to Police Station Alipur Chatta the same evening and made report Exh. P. D. At 9.30 p. m. To P.
W. 9 Rao Muhammad Ayyub Khan, S. I. After registering the case, he went to the place of occurrence. By that time Mst. Rasoolan had died. He prepared the necessary documents and sent the dead body for its post-mortem examination. From the place of occurrance, he also took into possession wooden log through memo. Exh. P. E. Attested by Muhammad Hussain alias Hussain Ali, P. W. 6 and Muhammad Baqir (not produced). A pair of shoes P., 6/1-2 of the deceased was also taken into possession through memo. Exh. P. G. Besides the blood-stained earth which was also taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. E. Attested by the same aforesaid Witnesses.
3. On the for Incharge Civil Hospital, azirabad, held the autopsy and found the following injures on the dead body of Mst. Rasoolan Bibi - "(1) An oblique incised wound 51" x 1' x bone cut on the frontal bone and right side of forehead of the scalp. Frontal hone was cut underneath the injury.
(2) Contusion x on the right side of chin and month with little swelling on it. Bone underneath the injury was fractured, and upper right laternal inciser and right lower two premolar teeth were fractured underneath.
(3) Contusion 211" x f" on the left cheek upper jaw under the injury was fractured."
The scalp and skull were injured under injury No, I. Membranes and brain were also injured. Mouth was injured under injury No,
2. Injury No, 1 was caused by a sharp-edged weapon, the rest were by blunt weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by injury No, 1 which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
4. On 6th October, 1975 Rao Muhammad Ayyub Khan, S.-I., arrested both accused. On the following day Sabir Hussain led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P. 4 from his house. It was taken into possession and made into a sealed parcel Exh. P. C. Attested by P. W. 4 Sadar Hussain and Baqir (not produced). According to the serologist's report, the hatchet P. 4 was stained with human blood. After completing the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial.
5. Both accused denied guilt and ascribed the case to enmity. Sabir Hussain produced notices Exh.
D. C. And Exh. D. D. Which are copies of the injunction orders of the Civil Court, Wazirabad dated 4th January, 1975 and 9th January, 1975, respectively, in which it was directed that the status quo be maintained. Accused led no evidence in defence. Relying on the prosecution evidence, trial Court found the case satisfactorily proved against Sabir Hussain. It gave the benefit of doubt to Allah Ditta and acquitted him because the incitement caused by him was a proverbial lalkara and was not considered to be satisfactorily proved.
6. Criticizing the findings of the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant contended that out of the three eye-witnesses, Gaulam Abbas who was a disinterested witness has not been produced.
He was given up as having been won over. He further contended that in fact the occurrence was not seen by the said eye-witnesses who have stage-managed their presence at the spot. In support of his submission, he argued that Ali Hussain P. W. 6 (informant) of this case was an interested witness because he was a son-in-law of Mst. Sardaran, as he had divorced her daughter Mst. Irshad Bibi who was appellant's sister. Further submitted that there was litigation between appellant's mother and P. W. Muhammad Hussain (informant), while is borne out from notices Exh.
D. C. And Exh. D. D. Produced by the accused during his examination ; wherein Ali Hussain son of Nawab has been sued by Mst. Sardaran mother of the accused in a declaratory suit. The informant also admitted that he was a respondent in the civil litigation regarding the inheritance dispute.
Under the circumstances, this witness would be an interested witness. His testimony required corroboration from the other circumstances of this case. The second eye-witness was P. W. 7 Nazar Muhammad who claimed to have seen the occurrence while he was coming home from the field.
Under cross-examination, this witness admitted that he had a case before the Civil Judge, Wazirabad, on that day and had gone there. Keeping in view the distance between Wazirabad and the place of occurrence, his return to the village would not be improbable. He denied having appeared as a witness for the deceased in the civil litigation. On the other hand, I find that there is no other male member living with Mst. Rasoolan Bibi who could have pursued the litigation on her behalf except Ali Hussain who lived with her and would have normally in this Court. It was admitted by the informant that the civil suit was fixed for hearing on the day of occurrence but he said that he did not go to Wazirabad. He also admitted that the injunction order has been issued against him and Mst. Rasoolan Bibi in favour of Mst. Sardaran. If this was true, all the more reason, he would have gone to Courts to attend the case because Mst. Rasoolan wanted to carry out the construction. Further, I find that the description of the attack on the deceased was an improbable story because it is admitted that a number of logs of wood were lying at the place of occurrence.
Had the informant been there, he would have resisted the attack from the very beginning by picking up a log of wood. On the other hand, I find, he claimed to have snatched the hatchet from A the accused yet he was unable to resist further attack made by the accused instead he even threw away the hachet, and it was thereafter that the deceased was hit with hatchet on the head. He claimed to have played an active role in stopping the accused from attacking Mst. Rasoolan Bibi But I find that there is not a scratch on him. There is also discrepancy in his statement as according to him, the injuries to the deceased were caused by the blunt side of the hatchet. Similar statement was made by P. W. 7 Nazar Muhammad but I find that injury No, I which was on the head was inflicted by the sharp-edged side of the hatchet which is not consistent with their statements.
According to them, the injury on the head was caused with a wooden log. Thus the story of the attack as narrated by the two eye-witnesses, on the face of it, under the circumstances, does not inspire confidence. Although, P. W. 7 Nazar Muhammad has no relationship with either side but his evidence like the informant was contradicted by medical evidence.
7. There was yet another material aspect of the case I e. The delay in making the report. The occurrence took place at 4 p. m. The Police Station was at a distance of 6 miles from the place of occurrence. The informant left Mst. Rasoolan unconscious and went to the Police Station. But the report was made at 9 p. m., even if he had gone on foot, he could have reached there at the most at about 7 p. m. There is an obvious delay C in making the report which indicates that it was made after due deliberation.
8. As to the recovery, the appellant was arrested ten days after the occurrence. To believe that he let the blood remain on the hatchet was rather improbable. Further I find that according to the ocular testimony, the injury which was inflicted on the face by the deceased was this blunt side of the hatchet but the blood was noticed on its sharp edged side. Be that as it may, the fact remains that if the accused was to keep the hatchet in his house it would be improbable that he would let the weapon remain blood-stained.
9. In view of the above analysis of the evidence of the prosecution, I am not satisfied with the guilt of the accused, giving him the benefit of doubt, I accept the appeal setting aside his conviction and sentence and acquit him. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.