' Amira, lqbal, Manzoor and Mukhtar were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge of Multan under section 302/34, P.P.C. For the double murder of Nazar Muhammad deceased and Mst. Manzooran deceased. By his judgment, dated 30-10-1980, the learned trial Judge convicted all the four accused under -gection 302/34, P.P.C. On two counts and sentenced them to life imprisonment each on both the counts with a fine of Rs,200 each on both the counts or in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two months each on both the counts. All the accused were also directed to pay compensation of Rs,200 each on two counts to the respective heirs of the two deceased or in default thereof to suffer two months' R.I. Each on both the counts.
Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and the periods of detention undergone by the accused in the judicial lock-up was directed to be deducted from their substantive sentences. The joint appeal (Criminal Appeal 1266 of 1980) of the convicts and the private revision (Criminal Appeal 55 of 1981) filed by Salamat Ali Shah complainant, for the enhancement of the sentence of the convicts, are both now before me for disposal.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Salamat All Shah complainant P.W.10 had installed a tube- well in Killa No,10 of his Square No,121 and sold its water. Nazar Muhammad son of Allah Bakhsh deceased worked there as his tenant. On 23rd of November, 1979 at 9-00 a.m. When he visited his tube-well,' he found Muhammad Hussain P.W.11 and Sarwar P.W.9 sitting there, while Nazar Muhammad deceased was ploughingd in Kills No,3 which was on lease with him. When he was talking with Sarwar about the water he heard from Killa No,5 that Nazar Muhammad was shouting 'Mar Dia' Mar Dia' whereupon the complainant alongwith Muhammad Hussain and Sarwar P.Ws.
Went to Kills No,3 and saw lqbal, Amira, Manzoor, and Mukhtar accused armed with Sotas, all inflicting injuries to Nazar Muhammad deceased, who was lying on the ground. On their reaching near him, all the four accused ran towards the cotton field in the north alongwith their Sotas. The complainant and Sarwar P.W. Also while raising alarm, chased them while Muhammad Hussain P.W. Stayed with Nazar Muhammad injured. All the four accused while running away turned towards West. On the alarm raised by the complainant and his companions. Mumtaz son of Muhammad Afzal, who was present at the watercourse, also started chasing the accused. When they reached the watercourse, they saw Mst. Manzooran deceased running ahead of the accused.
Amira accused caught hold of her by her hair near Chah Chathewala. He snatched the rope from the hand of Mst. Manzooran deceased and put it around her neck. Meanwhile, all the other three accused went on giving her Sota blows. She fell down on the ground. The P.Ws. Reached near ner and all the four accused alongwith their weapons of offence, ran away towards West. Amira accused had also taken away the rope with him. When the P.Ws. Attended Mst. Manzooran, he had already died. Sarwar P.W.9 and Mumtaz were left with the dead body of Mst. Manzooran and Salamat All Shah complainant went to inquire about Nazar Muhammad, and when he reached there, Falak Sher son of Shahrah, Muhammad Qasim son of Dara, Muhammad Hussain son of Ramzan, Zafar son of Shahrah, caste Sial, residents of the said village and others were bringing Nazar Muhammad deceased on a cot towards Kabirwala Hospital. Nazar Muhammad succumbed to his injuries. The complainant directed Muhammad Hussain and others to take the dead body of Nazar Muhammad towards the site of occurrence and he himself went to make the report. The cause of enmity was that the accused suspected Nazar Muhammad deceased of having illicit relations with Mst. Manzooran deceased and for that reason all the four accused, in mutual collaboration, had murdered Mst. Manzooran and Nazar Muhammad deceased under a pre- planned scheme.
3. Salamat All Shah, P.W.10 lodged F.I.R. Exh.P.M. At Police Station, Kabirwala the same day at 1-00 p.m., which was recorded by All Muhammad S.I. P.W.12. The police officer then proceeded to the spot. Since both the dead bodies were lying at two different places, he caused the dead body of Mst. Manzooran to be brought to the place of occurrence where the dead body of Nazoora deceased was lying and where he was conducting the investigation. After preparing the necessary papers, he sent both the dead bodies for post-mortem examination. He also collected blood- stainer! Earth from the spot where the body of Nazara deceased was lying which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.K.
4. On 24-11-1979 at 9-00 a.m. Dr. Muhammad Rafi P.W.1 conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Nazar Muhammad deceased and found seven contused wounds, twenty-five bruises, ten abrasions and many unaccountable bruises and abrasions on different parts of the dead body. All the injuries were collectively fatal in the normal course of nature. The collective injuries on the left hand and back of chest were declared to be grievous. Time between injuries and death was between one to three hours and that between death and post-mortem examination, about twenty-four hours. A swa b taken from the urethra was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who found the same stained with semen. The same day, Dr. Muhammad Rafi P.W.1 performed the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Manzooran and found one contused wound, twelve bruises, four abrasions and unaccountable bruises and abrasions on different parts of the dead body. Death in the opinion of the doctor had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage and strangultition. All the injuries were collectively fatal in the ordinary course of nature. Time between injuries and death was about five minutes and between death and post-mortem about twenty- four hours. A swa b taken from the vagina was sent to the Chemical Examiner, who found the same stained with semen.
5. On the same day i.e, 24-11-1979, all the four accused were produced before All Muhammad S.I.
P.W.12, who arrested them. Amira accused produced stick P.11 and a piece of rope P.12 and Manzoor, Mukhtar and Iqbal accused produced Sotas P.13, P.14 and P.15 before the police officer, who took the same into custody vide memos. P.F., P.G., P.H. And P.I.Trespectively. The said recoveries were witnessed by Muhammad Shafi P.W.7, Ali Muhammad S.I. P.W.12 and Qasim (given up P.W.).
6. At the trial, the prosecution produced Salamat Ali Shah P.W.10 to prove the motive, Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9, Salamat Ali Shah P.W.10 and Muhammad Hussain P.W. 11 in proof of the ocular testimony, Muhammad Shafi P.W.7 and All Muhammad S.I. P.W.12 in proof of the recoveries and Dr. Muhammad Rafi P.W.1 to corroborate the medical testimony. All the accused denied the accusations levelled against them, including the recoveries effected at their instance. Mukhtar accused admitted the occurrence. According to his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C.
He was passing through the fields of his Chak, when he saw both the deceased in a compromising position, upon which he lost his self-control and under grave and sudden provocation killed both of them. He stated that Mst. Manzooran deceased was his aunt, that no one else was with him, and that the prosecution witnesses were not present and they had cooked up a false story. The other three accused imputed their false involvement due to their relationship with Mst. Manzooran deceased and Mukhtar accused.
7. The learned trial Judge, relying upon the motive, the ocular account furnished by Salamat Ali Shah P.W.10 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.11 and the medical testimony, convicted and sentenced all the four accused, as stated above.
8.I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the ppellants, the complainant and the State and have also perused the record. The evidence as regards motive is furnished by Salamat Ali Shah P.W.10. According to his testimony, the appellants suspected the two deceased of illicit intimacy with each other and had, therefore, murdered them. In cross-examination, he admitted that he came to know of this motive after the occurrence when the relatives of the appellants had told him about it. According to Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9 during the period from 9-00 a.m. To 5-00 p.m., when the police was present at the spot, out of the relatives of Mst. Manzooran deceased only Mukhtar appellant had come to the spot at about 5-00 p.m. According to the statement of Salamat All Shah P.W.10 in cross-examination, neither any relative of Mst. Manzooran accompanied the dead body to the mortuary nor any appellant appeared before the police on the day of occurrence. This conduct shows their hatred for the two. It cannot be denied that Manzoor appellant was the brother of Mst. Manzooran deceased, whereas Amira, lqbal and Mukhtar appellants were the brother and nephew of Muhammad Ramzan, the husband of Mst. Manzooran deceased. It is, therefore, clear that the motive as pressed by the prosecution, stands established.
9. The ocular account in this case if furnished by Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9, Salamat Ali Shah P.W.10 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.11. Salamat All Shah P.W.10 is not related to Nazara deceased but had adopted him and the deceased was living with him in his house and cultivating his land.
Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9 is not related to the deceased. Muhammad Hussain P.W.11 however, happens to be the step-father of the deceased. None of the three eye-witnesses had any enmity against the appellant or any animus to falsely involve them on so grave a charge as that of murder. The learned trial Judge rejected the testimony of Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9 on the ground that he had been declared hostile and permission to cross-examine him had .Been granted by the Court. The circumstances in which Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9 was declared hostile by the trial Judge, by his separate order, dated 14-7-1980, appears to be strange. It was contended by the learned Assistant District Attorney that the said witness had stated in cross-examination that the F.I.R. Was recorded by the police at the spot, after his statement was recorded, and that when he reached neat the dead body of Mst. Manzooran, the same was covered with a cloth which the accused had put over it and, therefore, he could not say of what colour the loincloth was which was worn by Mst. Manzooran deceased, which statements he had made to destroy the case. The learned trial Judge held that by the said statements, the witness had favoured the appellants he accepted the prayer made by the learned District Attorney for the cross-examination of the said witness. In the first instance, the submission that the F.I.R. Was recorded at the spot after his own statement, is not sufficient to straightaway brand the witness as a hostile witness. As regards the second fact urged for declaring him hostile, namely, that when he reached the dead body of Mst.
Manzooran, the same was covered with a cloth which the accused had put over it and, therefore, he could not say of what colour the loincloth was which was worn by Mst. Manzooran deceased, the same was not properly considered as earlier Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9 had stated that Mukhtar appellant had come to the spot at about 5-00 p.m. And that Mst. Manzooran was having 'her clothes on and was not naked. In these circumstances, there was no contradiction to compel the Court to declare 'this witness hostile. It appears this witness has been improperly declared hostile on flimsy and spurious grounds and his evidence cannot be discarded from consideration.
The ocular testimony furnished by Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9, Salamat All Shah P.W.10 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.11 is consistent, the same already stands narrated' in the brief facts submitted in para. 2 above and need not be repeated. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the witnesses did not see the occurrence and that the two deceased were done to death by Mukhtar appellant when he found them in a compromising position. In this connection, as regards the first point, it was submitted that according to the testimony of Sher Muhammad, Patwari P.W.6, the height of the cotton crop between the tube-well and the place where Nazara deceased was done to death was 5 to 51 feet high and the crop was thick and the statement of Salamat Ali Shah was referred to show that there were crops of barseem and cotton between him and the deceased when he first saw the appellants at a distance of more than three Killas. As regards the second submission made, learned counsel submitted that when the police arrived at the spot, both the dead bodies were present allegedly at the place where Nazara deceased had fallen and the statement of Manzoor P.W.9 who stated that the appellants had put a cloth over the dead body of Mst. Manzooran and, therefore, he could not say of what colour the loincloth worn by Mst. Manzooran was, leads to the inference that the story as alleged by Mukhtar appellant was reasonably probable, if not true. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. From the statement of Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9 it appears that Nazara deceased was done to death outside the cotton field and there was no cotton crop in the land intervening Nazara deceased and the appellants, on the one hand, and he and the other witnesses, on the other, because that land was being prepared for chillies. According to Salamat Ali Shah P.W.10 he had seen the appellants and the deceased for the first time at a distance of a little over three Killas and there was no obstacle in between them and himself, though there were crops of barseem and cotton on both sides. According to him, when they had run up and were at a distance of Killa from the appellants and the deceased, the appellants had run away. It is, therefore, clear that all the three eye-witnesses had come up sufficiently close to the appellants to see and identify them and since the appellants were known to them, the question of their identification at a Killa distance in the morning at 9-00 a.m. Does not present any difficulty. This contention of the learned counsel is, therefore, rejected. As regards the second submission made by the learned counsel, it is clear from the evidence in chief of all the three witnesses that both the deceased were injured by the appellants at two distinct different places ten Killas away from each other. According to the testimony of Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9 Salamat Ali Shah P.W. 10 and Muhammad Hussain P.W.11 after the police had arrived, they brought the dead body of Mst.
Manzooran to the place where the dead body of Nazara deceased was lying, from where both the dead bodies were despatched to the mortuary. As regards the statement made by Muhammad Sarwar P.W.9, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the same must be read in the context of the main narration given by him in his evidence-in-chief. In his examination-in-chief, he had nowhere mentioned that when the appellants saw Mst. Manzooran and caught hold of her by her hair, strangulated her with a rope which she originally had and then started inflicting blows on her with their Dangs, that she was in any way naked. In cross- examination, Muhammad Sarwar P.W. Had also stated that at about 5-00 p.m. Mukhtar appellant had appeared before the police at the spot, when the dead, bodies were still lying there, then after some cross-examination, certain details are given by this witness, in answer to questions showing the manner in which the different appellants attacked and injured Mst. Manzooran. Then comes the following narration:- "I cannot say if each of the accused had given only one blow to Mst. Manzooran. Mst. Manzooran was having her clothes on and was not naked. I did not see if her clothes were torn or not, due to the blows given by the accused to her. The accused had put a cloth over the dead body of Mst.
Manzooran and, therefore, I cannot say of what colour Mst. Manzooran was wearing the loincloth: A white cloth was spread over the dead body of Mst. Manzooran from head to toe when we reached there. I also, therefore, cannot tell the colour of shirt which Mst. Manzooran was wearing at that time."
Reading this narration, in proper context; it appears that Mst. Manzooran was initially having her clothes on and was not naked. The reference to the cloth over the dead body of Mst. Manzooran deceased, which the witness says the appellants had put, obviously refers to the cloth which Mukhtar appellant must have put at 5-00 p.m. When he came. The words that:- "a white cloth was spread over the dead body of Mst. Manzooran from head to toe when we reached there." ' and that he could not "tell the colour of the shirt which Mst. Manzooran was wearing at that time", refers to the time when the witness reached the spot perhaps for the second time later at 5-00 p.m., when he found the cloth over the dead body of Mst. Manzooran. Since the witness was giving the evidence some time after the occurrence, he obviously could not remember the colour of the shirt which Mst. Manzooran was wearing at that time. In these circumstances, nothing turns on the statement of Muhammad Sarwar, P.W.9 as referred to by the -learned counsel. Further, nothing turns on the fact that the swa bs taken from the vagina of Mst. Manzooran and from the urethra of Nazar Muhammad deceased were found stained with semen, the former was a married lady and may have slept with her husband on the night preceding her death. The latter, who suffered merciless beating; may have ejaculated some semen from his testicles into his urethra. Fear coupled with merciless beating can produce this phenomena. In the absence of evidence or clear circumstances which may warrant the inference that the two deceased were found in suspicious circumstances together near the place where Nazar Muhammad deceased was done to death, the mere presence of swa bs stained with semen does not assist the defence case. Though an attempt was made to suggest that Salamat All Shah P.W. 10 was carrying on with Mst. Allah Wassai and Mst.
Irshad, the wife and daughter of Sultan, brother of Amira appellant, and that he has given false evidence in order to compel the appellants to force the said Sultan to divorce Mst. Allah Wassai so that he should continue his illicit relationship with his wife and daughter, all these suggestions were denied by Salamat All Shah, P.W.10. None of the eye-witnesses have any enmity with the appellants to falsely implicate them. The ocular evidence is also otherwise natural and convincing and since Muhammad Sarwar P.W. 9 is a totally disinterested witness, the ocular testimony can be accepted without any further corroboration.
10. The testimony furnished by Dr. Muhammad Rafi P.W. Of clearly shows that Nazara deceased was mercilessly beaten to death and Mst. Manzooran deceased was also given more than seventeen injuries, apart from being strangulated. The number and nature of injuries show that at least three to four persons were involved in the venture. The legature marks on the middle of the neck of Manzooran deceased also corroborates the version of the eye-witnesses that she was strangulated. The medical testimony, therefore, corroborates the ocular account. The learned trial Judge did not give much importance to the recovery of the Sotas at the instance of the four appellants and a piece of rope at the instance of Amira appellant, because the Sotas were not stained with blood. The testimony of Muhammad Shafi, P.W.7 has not been commented upon by the learned counsel for the appellants. Considering that the ocular testimony is disinterested; the production of the weapons of offence by all four appellants at the time of their arrest, is not without significance.
11. The upshot of the above discussion is that the motive, the ocular account, the medical testimony and the recoveries conclusively prove the case to the hilt against the appellants. In these circumstances, the appellants appear to have been rightly convicted and sentenced.
12. There being no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. The sentence imposed being legal and proper, the revision petition sir dismissed in limine.