' MUHAMMAD HASSAN SINDHER, J.-- Muhamamd Abdullah a teenager (18) has been found guilty by learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to death with a fine of Rs,1,000 and also convicted for the offence under section 307, Pakistan Penal Code with sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs,1,000 for having on 9th August, 1978 at 10.00 a.m. In the house of his uncle Ashiq Hussain in Sangla Hill town committed the murder of Mst. Rashida Begum and murderous assault on Mst. Haleema respectively wife and daughter of Ashiq Hussain. The sentence for the offence of attempted murder of Mst. Haleema was to take effect and also to run concurrently if the sentence of death on the charge of murder is not confirmed. Similarly, the sentences for six months each for non-payment of fine under both counts are also to be suffered by the accused if the sentence of death was commuted to lesser penalty of imprisonment for life. The accused has appealed and the case is also before us under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code for confirmation of sentence of death.
2. The facts which form the basis of charge against the appellant are fairly simple. The appellant lost his father when he was two years old and was all along brought up by Ashiq Hussain (P.W.6) who as said above is husband of the deceased and father of Mst. Haleema. Ashiq Hussain had an idea that Mst. Haleema (P.W.7) will be married to the appellant if he turned out to be a suitable match for her. About eight/nine days before the occurrence the appellant asked for the hand of Mst. Haleema for marriage with him. Ashiq Hussain replied that the girl was studying in 6th Class and will be married to the appellant after 5/6 years, provided he starts doing some work. The appellant left away in rage with a warning that he will teach the witness a lesson. On the day of incident the appellant entered the house at 10.00 a.m. When Ashiq Hussain was away to Faisalabad. Mst. Haleema was sitting inside a room alongwith her younger sister Ismat. The appellant started dealing injuries to Mst. Haleema (P.W.7) with a knife in his hand. The deceased who was present in the adjoining room rushed to intervene and she was also given a number of injuries by the appellant. Habib Ahmed (P.W.8) who was selling fruit outside the house and Muhammad Siddique who is also a nephew of Ashiq Hussain and first cousin of the appellant were attracted to the site by the shouts of the deceased and Mst. Haleema (P.W.7). The appellant made good his escape. The deceased and Mst. Haleema were taken to Civil Hospital, Sangla Hill, where they were examined by Lady Doctor Zahida (P.W.4) at 11.30 a.m. And found to have suffered injuries as below:- ' Mst. HALEEMA:
(1) A stab wound 24" x 1" x cavity deep with intestines and mesentary having come out situate on the interior abdominal wall on the left side 2" above and left of the umbilicus.
(2) An incised wound 34" x 1" x bone deep on the medial aspect of the left wrist and arm above it.
(3) An incised wound 24" x 1" x bone deep on back of the medial aspect of left wrist and hand below it.
(4) An incised wound 2" x 4" x muscle deep on the back of right forearm 2" below the elbow.
(5) An incised wound 14" x 4" x muscle deep on the back of the right elbow.
' The injuries were caused by sharp-edged pointed weapon, injury No,1 was declared dangerous to life. The next two injuries were simple in nature while the remaining two injuries 4/5 were kept under observation (P.E.), which were also eventually declared simple on 7th November, 1978.
' Mst. RASHIDA BEGUM (deceased):
(1) An incised wound 34" x A" x bone deep on left temporal region.
(2) A stab wound 1/2 x 14" x 14" about 1/2" in front of the left ear.
(3) An incised wound 4" x 4" x muscle deep on the left corner of the lower lip.
(4) An incised wound 4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the left side of upper lip half an inch from the middle.
(5) A stab wound 1"x 1/4" x muscle deep on the left side of neck just to the left of the sternal notch.
(6) A stab wound 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep on the medial upper end of the right breast.
(7) A stab wound 4" x 1" x muscle deep just half an inch below the epigastrium.
(8) A stab wound 14" x 1" x muscle deep 4" below the umbilicus.
' These injuries were also caused by sharp-edged pointed weapon and were kept under observation (P.G.).
3. Syed Mustajab Hussain (P.W.11) Sub-Inspector Police Station, Sangla Hill having learnt of the incident at 11.00 a.m. During usual patrol in the Main Bazar of the town rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of Mst. Haleema and the deceased both, after they were certified fit to make statements by the doctor (P.F., P.H., P.F/1 and P.11 . /1). The statement (P.A.) made by Mst.
Haleema which was recorded first at 11.45 a.m. Was sent to police station where formal first information report (P.A./1) was entered by Muhammd Zubair Head Constable (P.W.1) at 12.00 noon.
Clothes (P.3/4) of Mst. Haleema were collected from the Doctor by the Sub-Inspector and taken into possession by means of memo. (P.M). Thereafter, he left for the site and collected blood- stained earth by means of memo. (P.L.). The appellant was arrested within a few hours from a place near railway crossing. The clothes on his person (P.5 to P.7) which were stained with blood were taken into possession in the presence of Faqirullah (P.W.9), and Muhammad Siddiq by means of memo. (P.N.) and made into sealed parcel. The appellant is said to have sustained some injuries during the incident due to fall against a Peittee (a large steel box) lying inside the room where Haleema and the deceased were attacked and was referred to the hospital where he was examined by Dr. Muhammad Aslam (P.W.5) at 12.45 a.m. And found to have following injuries on him:-
(1) An incised wound 4" x 1/4" x skin deep on the right side of the head 3" above the right ear.
(2) An incised wound 1/3" x 1/4" x skin deep on the middle of the front of the right little finger.
(3) An incised wound 1/3" x 1/4" x skin deep on the middle of the right ring-finger.
' The injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon within two and a half hours (P.J.)
4. Meanwhile, Ashiq Hussain had also returned from Faisalabad and learnt of the incident at Railway Station Sangla Hill. The injured who were in serious condition were transported in a Tractor/Trolley to Faisalabad for better treatment where they were admitted to District Headquarters Hospital at 4-05 p.m. They both were in precarious condition and were attended by Doctor Muhammad Ajmal Khan (P.W.12). Mst. Rashida expired at 5-30 p.m. And her dead body was brough to Sangla Hill. The Sub-Inspector prepared injury statement Exh.P.S. And inquest report P.C.
And forwarded the dead body to mortuary through Fazel Din Constable (P.W.2) for post-mortem examination. Autopsy was held by Doctor Muhammad Aslam (P.W.5) next day. The external injuries were the same as were already noticed by Lady Doctor Zahida (P.W.4) who had examined the deceased when alive (P.C.) On dissection, wall on the right side of the chest was punctured, the pleura on the right side, the right lung in the upper lobe and the abdominal wall were cut at the epigastrium, and below the umbilicus. All injuries were caused by sharp-edged pointed weapon.
Injuries Nos.5 and 6 were declared sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Death was caused by shock and haemorrhage resulting from the above-said two injuries (P.K.).
5. Knife (P.8) was recovered at the pointing out of the appellant on 14-8-1978 from inside the room which was the venue of the incident and was taken into possession by means of memo. (P.O.) in the presence of Faqirullah (P.W.9), and Muhammad Siddiq who were also witnesses of arrest of the appellant and recovery of his clothes (P.5 to P.7). The knife and clothes of the appellant were found to be stained with human blood (P.T./P.U.).
6. Ashiq Hussain (P.W.6) is witness of motive. Mst. Haleema and Habib Ahmed (P.Ws.7/8) are eye- witnesses. Mst. Haleema has also deposed to the motive. Faqirullah (P.W.9) is witness of arrest of the appellant, recovery of clothes (P.5 to P.7) on his person and that of knife (P.8). Muhammad Siddiq who as said above was a cousin of Mst. Haleeman and the appellant, was cited as an eye- witness in the first information report, and had also to depose to the recoveries sought to be proved by the evidence of Faqirullah and the Investigating Officer, was given up as having been won over. Doctor A.A. Khalid (P.W.10) had issued death certificate (P.Q.) of the deceased. Mustajab Hussain (P.W.11) is the Investigating Officer. The remaining evidence in the case is of formal character and need not be mentioned here.
' The appellant denied the allegation that he had asked Ashiq Hussain (P.W.6) that Mst. Haleema (P.W.7) be married to him, that he got offended when Ashiq Hussain had declined his demand, that he had 8-9 days thereafter assaulted the deceased and Mst. Haleema inside the house, and also the recoveries of blood-stained clothes and knife (P.5 to P.8) alleged against him. When questioned to explain injuries on his person, the appellant contended that the Sub-Inspector had given him blows with an iron shod stick. The appellant further pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case as he did not agree to the demand of Ashiq Hussain and Faqirullah (P.Ws., 6/9) for conversion to Ahmadiat. No evidence was led in defence.
7. It will be shown that prosecution case rests on the following species of evidence:-
(1) Direct Evidence.
(2) Motive.
(3) Medical Evidence.
(4) Recoveries.
' Mst. Haleema (P.W.7) has narrated the detail of the incident and charged the appellant for having caused her injuries as well as to her mother when the latter had rushed to intervene. Mst. Haleema had also stated that she had learnt through the deceased that her father had put off the demand of the appellant for her marriage with the appellant. Habib Ahmed (P.W.8) says that at the time of incident he was selling fruits outside the house of Ashiq Hussain (P.W.6). On hearing out cries he had rushed inside the house and saw the appellant giving injuries to Mst. Haleema and Mst.
Rasheeda Begum with knife. Muhammad Siddiq had also entered the house and witnessed the occurrence. The appellant ran away when the witness asked what he was doing.
' The statement of Mst. Haleema is not open to any conceiveable criticism. She was a natural witness of the occurrence which took place inside the house and a number of serious injuries on her further guarantees her presence. The suggestion made to the witness during cross- examination that she and the deceased were attacked by some thieves during the night is ridiculously hollow. Statement of Lady Doctor Zahida (P.W.4) thai Mst. Haleema and the deceased were injured within two hours of their examination at 11-30 a.m. Also falsifies this suggestion. There could be no doubt that Mst. Haleema, the deceased and the appellant had sustained injuries during the same incident. The explanation put forth by the appellant that he was caused injuries by the Sub-Inspector with an iron shod stick is not convincing in the least. Injury No,1 of the appellant which was on the right side of the head 3" above the ear could be caused through a fall or striking against the edge of a large steel box. The remaining two injuries 1/3" x 1"--skin deep each on the little and ring finger of the right hand could have been sustained by the appellant in handling the weapon while dealing injuries to Mst. Haleema and the deceased. There was no previous enmity between Ashiq Hussain (P.W.6) and the appellant. One should shudder to think that the complainant side had substituted the appellant for some unknown assailants and had made false statements against him on a capital charge. Accused who pleads susbtitution in place of the real culprit has to lay a foundation for the plea which is not to be found anywhere in this case.
Relationship of Mst. Haleema with the deceased is also no ground for not acting upon her testimony which is otherwise quite reliable. Fazal Din constable (P.W.2) had said that Mst. Rasheeda Begum had died while on her way from Sangla Hill to Faisalabad and the dead body was brought back. An argument was sought to be raised on these premises that the entire evidence on the side of the prosecution that Mst. Rasheeda Begum was admitted to Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad at 4-05 p.m. And had died thereafter about 11 hours (5-30 p.m.) becomes doubtful. We fail to appreciate merit of this contention. Fazal Din had made a confused statement. There is no reason to doubt the version of Doctor Muhammad Ajmal (P.W.12) that the deceased was admitted to the hospital and had died there shortly afterwards.
' Prosecution could not stand to gain anything by suppressing the fact that Mst. Rasheeda Begum had died during the way to Faisalabad and Mst. Haleema (P.W.7) alone was admitted to the hospital. Much storm was also raised on the point that no entry was made in the record of the hospital at Sangla Hill that Mst. Haleema and Mst. Rasheeda Begum were taken to Faisalabad for better treatment. We again fail to understand how this omission could damage the case of the prosecution. Habib Ahmed (P.W.8) is a pedlar and sells fruit in a cart. He does not have a fixed place of business and roams about in the town in connection with his business. No suggestion was made to the witness during cross-examination that Mohalla Islampura where the house of Ashiq Hussain (P.W.6) was situated was not in the routine circuit of the witness for his business. We do not think that it was an odd coincidence that Habib Ahmad was present outside the house and he was a chance witness, nor we find it reasonable to reject his statement on the ground that he and Ashiq Hussain were of the same community.
8. Faqirullah and Mastajab Hussain Sub-Inspector (P.Ws. 9/11) have said that the appellant was arrested near the Railway crossing and his clothes (P.5 to P.7) stained with blood were taken into possession by means of memo. P.M. It is also in evidence of Faqirullah that there were several shops close to the place where the appellant was arrested and the shops were open. However, none of the shopkeepers or other persons present there was joined to attest the recovery. There is no explanation why the shopkeepers whose presence at the time of arrest of the appellant was natural were excluded. Faqirullah says that the appellant was arrested at 2-00/3-00 p.m., while according to statement of Doctor Muhammad Aslam (P.W.5), the appellant was examined at 12-45 p.m. Faqirullah says that clothes (P.5 to P.7) were removed off the person of the appellant at the place where he was arrested and the appellant was provided a Kurta and a Chaddar borrowed from someone. The Sub-Inspector had said that the appellant was first brought to the spot where his clothes were removed and taken into possession. Faqirullah says that they had seen the appellant from a distance of 7/8 Karams and the appellant had kept standing where he was. The Sub-Inspector had said that he had seen the appellant from a distance of 15/20 yards and the appellant had also seen them. However, the appellant did not make any effort to flee away. It does not stand to reason that the appellant would not have tried to run away when he had seen the police from a distance. We feel doubtful if the appellant was arrested in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Recovery of clothes (P.5 to P.7) should be kept apart. We find from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution had not relied on the recovery of knife (P.5) alleged to have been effected at the instance of the appellant. This was, in our view, a wise attitude. No credence could be given to this recovery which is said to have been effected on the last day of the remand of the appellant in police custody.
Motive alleged against the appellant is also established by the statements of Ashiq Hussain and Mst. Haleema (P.Ws. 6/7). The appellant had no other cause of grievance against the family of the deceased. Assuming that it will be safer to exclude the statement of Habib Ahmed (P.W.8) when even the statement of Mst. Haleema as re-inforced by motive and medical evidence furnishes a sound basis for finding of guilty against the appellant. It is not necessary that accused charged with capital offence should not be convicted if the prosecution case was left with a single eye- witness although adjudged a reliable witness.
' No fixed number of witness is needed to prove a fact. Even the testimony of one witness is sufficient. The proposition that in a murder case, the Court should insist upon plurality of witnesses is much too broadly stated. Section 134 Evidence Act enshrines the well-recognized maxim that evidence has to be weighed and not counted.
9. In the result of the above discussion, we are firmly of the view that the charge has been established against the appellant to the hilt and he was rightly convicted. The appellant was guilty of dastardly act and in the circumstances deserves normal penalty of death. We maintain his conviction for the murder of Mst. Rasheeda Begum and sentence of death under section 302, P.P.C.
We also maintain his conviction as well as the sentence for the offence of attempted murder of Mst. Haleema under section 307, P.P.C. Appeal dismissed. Death .
Death .