' Khushi Masih (28), son of Siraj Masai, Labourer, resident of Ramke Kho, was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, on the allegations that on 4th February 1980, he trespassed into the house of her sister Mst. Shamim, situate inside Taxan Gate, Lahore, and committed the murder of her servant Muhammad Siddiq, made murderous assault on her daughters Mst. Nasreen and Mst. Tasneem and took away her ornaments, cash and other articles from the said house. By judgment dated 30th August 1981, he was convicted under sections 302, 307 and 452, P.P.C. And sentenced as under:--
(i) Imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,20,000 under section 302, P . P. C. ,
(ii) R.I. For four years' and a fine of Rs,5,000 under section 307, P.P.C., and
(iii) R.I. For one year and a fine of Rs,1,000 under section 452, P . P .C.
' Out of the fine, a sum of Rs,20,000 was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that Mst. Shamim complainant was residing in a house situate in Texali Gate, Lahore. On 4th February 1980, she went to the house of her daughter Mst. Parveen, situate in R.A. Bazaar, Lahore. In her absence, Khushi Masih appellant visited her house. Her servant Muhammad Siddiq deceased and her daughters Mst. Tasneem and Mst.
Nasreen were present there. The appellant abused Muhammad Siddiq deceased and asked him why he had not left the house of Mst. Shamim. Simultaneously, he gave him several blows on the head with an iron pipe. Mst. Nasreen stepped forward to rescue him but the appellant attacked her as well as causing injuries on her face and head. Meanwhile, Mst. Shamim, her husband Sadiq and Jahangir P.Ws also reached the spot. On receiving the injuries, Muhammad Siddiq deceased fell to the ground and expired. Mst. Tasneem who was on the upper storey of the house raised alarm, upon which the appellant went upstairs, caused her injuries with the iron pipe and then ran away.
On checking the house hold effects, some cash and ornaments were found missing from the iron- box.
' The motive for the offence was that the appellant had a suspicion that Mst. Shamim and her daughters were having illicit relations with Muhainmad Siddiq deceased.
' Leaving the dead body of Muhammad Siddiq in the custody of Jahangir and Sadiq P.Ws. Mst.
Shamim started for the police station. Haq Nawaz, S.H.O., Police Station Tibbi, met her on the way and she reported the occurrence to him at 9.30 p.m. Vide her statement Exh. P.B. On the basis of which formal F.I.R., Exh. P.B/1 was recorded at the police station.
3. After recording the statement of Mst. Shamim, the S.H.O. Reached the spot and investigated the case. He prepared the inquest report Exh. P.N. Of the dead body and took into possession blood- stained earth from three places vide memos. Exh. p.c., P.D. And P.E. On 5th February 1980 he arrested the appellant from the house of one Kirpa Masih, situate in Islamia Park, Lahore, and recovered iron-pipe (P. 5) from his possession vide memo., Exh. P.G. He also recovered some ornaments, clothes and cash from the possession of the appellant vide memo. Exh. P.F. After the usual investigation the appellant was challaned.
4. On 5th February 1980, Dr. Muhammad Nasim Abid, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Muhammad Siddiq deceased. As the doctor was not available, the prosecution examined Abdul Sattar Shah, Dispenser, who proved post-mortem report Exh. P.O. To be in the hand-writing of aforesaid Dr. Muhammad Nasim Abid. According to this report, the deceased had eleven lacerated wounds on the head and face region. The death was due to shock, extensive fracture of the bone of skull with laceration of brain matter.
' On 4th February 1980, Dr. Munnawar Saeed Bokhari, Casulty Medical Officer, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, examined Mst. Nasreen and found the following injuries on her person:--
(1) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Arm/chin.
(2) Incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Left side of upper part of the fore head.
(3) Lacerated wound 3 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. Left side upper lip.
(4) Swelling left side all over the face.
(5) T-shape 6 c.m. x 3 c.m. Over the vertex of hand.
(6) Oblique place lacerated wound 7.05 c.m. x 2 c.m. Posterior part right pariatal aspect of scalp.
' Injury No, 3 was declared grievous and the rest were simple.
' On 5th February 1980, Dr. Abdul Sattar, Casulty Medical Officer, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, examined Mst. Tasneem and found an incised wound and four lacerated wounds on her person. All the injuries were simple in nature.
5. In support of its case the prosecution examined four eye-witnesses, namely, Mst. Shamim, Mst.
Nasreen, Mst. Tasneem and Jahangir P.Ws. It also relied on the evidence relating to motive and recoveries at the instance of the appellant.
6. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against him. When asked to explain why this case against him, he mad the following statement:-- "As Shamim P.W. Alongwith her daughters had embraced Islam and she had started living like a prostitute and indulging her daughters in prostitution, on this situation, I used to forbid and resist the activities of Shamim P.W. She has involved me in this case due to this enmity."
' He further stated that Mst. Shamim was involved in a case under section 294, P.P.C. And in many other cases like that and that she was convicted in some cases and was under the impression that he got her convicted in the said cases. He examined Nazir Hussain Shah as defence witnesses who stated that on the day of occurrence at 8 p.m., he visited Muhammad Siddiq and saw two persons armed with Chhuri and Danda quarrelling with him; Khushi Masih appellant was not there and he informed Mst. Shamim about the quarrel.
7. After examining the evidence on the record the learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that Mst. Shamim and Muhammad Jahangir P.Ws were not present at the spot and Mst. Tasneem was not present on the ground floor when the accused caused injuries to Mst. Nasreen and committed the murder of Muhammad Siddiq deceased. He accepted the evidence of Mst. Nasreen and that of Mst. Tasneem about her own injuries and observed that they had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the appellant who was closely related to them. He disbelieved the recoveries and relying on the evidence of Mst. Nasreen and Mst. Tasneem P.Ws, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that only uncorroborated evidence of Mst.
Nasreen was left in the field which was not at all sufficient for recording a finding of conviction particularly when she could not explain two incised wounds on her person and gave an exaggerated number of her own injuries. The learned State counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the appellant is closely related to Mst. Nasreen and she had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate him in this case.
9. Having gone through the record I find that the finding of the trial Judge that Mst. Shamim and Jahangir were not present at the spot, is well founded. The evidence on the record further shows that Mst. Tasneem was on the upper storey and she had not seen what had happened on the ground floor. Mst. Nasreen is the only witness of murder and of her own injuries. She is the daughter of real sister of the appellant. She is the most natural witness as the occurrence took place in her house. It is the case of a single accused and there was absolutely no possibility of mistaken identification. It is true that she stated that the accused injured her with an iron bar and she became senseless after receiving fifteen injuries but the medical evidence shows that she had six injuries which included two incised wounds. This discrepancy about the nature and number of injuries, however, does not constitute any ground for discarding her evidence. It is unbelievable that she would spare her own assailant and falsely implicate her own real maternal uncle. In the circumstances, her solitary statement can safely be accepted without corroboration. This view finds support from Nazir v. State PLD 1960 SC 387. I am, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has brought home the guilt to the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt and he was rightly convicted.
The appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 20,000 ,under section 302, P.P.C. He filed this appeal through jail which would show that he is not a man of means. The sentence of fine is, therefore, reduced to Rs,2,000 and in default of payment thereof he will undergo further R.I. For six months., The fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. The sentence of imprisonment under section 307, P.P.C. Is maintained but that of fine is reduced to Rs,500. In default of B payment of the same he will undergo R.I. For one month.
The fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Mst. Nasreen and Mst. Tasneem in equal shares. His sentence of imprisonment under section 452, P.P.C. Is also maintained but the sentence of fine is set aside. All the sentences shall run concurrently and he shall be given the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.