1. SALAHODDIN ARMED, J.-This appeal by special leave is from the order of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, maintaining the conviction of appellant Rahmat Ullah under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the sentence of transportation for life passed on him thereunder.
2. As all the principal witnesses for prosecution had resiled at the trial from their earlier statements before the Committing Magistrate and the High Court had based the conviction largely on acceptance of the earlier statements, leave was granted to re-examine the evidence to ensure that justice was done.
3. Mst. Majidan deceased was the daughter of the appellant and she was married to Nazir. Some time after marriage she started residing in her parents' house. She had the reputation of leading an immoral life. Both her husband and her father had failed to induce her to go back to her husband.
4. The appellant, who was aware of the reputation of the deceased, very much resented her refusal to go back to her husband, and this was the motive for the murder.
5. On the date of occurrence, namely, 1st September 1963 at 8 a. m. P. Ws. Talib Hussain and Nur Muhammad were proceeding to the shop of P. W. Ibrahim for repair of some implements and when they arrived near the house of the appellant, they heard cries coming from there. They entered the house and found the appellant striking the deceased with Toka. In the meantime P. Ws. Ibrahim and Khuda Bakhsh too, were attracted to the scene of the crime, and they caught the appellant, and P. W. Ibrahim removed the Toka from the hand of the appellant. The deceased soon succumbed to her injuries. P. W. Talib Hussain went to the Police Station, 5 miles away, and lodged a first Information Report at 9-30 a.m. Mentioning the appellant as the assailant of his own daughter, Mst. Majidan deceased, and the names of the aforesaid witnesses as having seen the occurrence. Shortly after, the police arrived at the scene of occurrence, and seized a shirt, a turban, and a chadar, all blood-stained, from the person of the accused. These clothes were subsequently fowid by the Serologist to contain human blood. A blood-stained Toka produced by P. W. Ibrahim was also seized, and this, too, was found to contain human blood.
6. Autopsy was head by P. W. Dr. Safdar A.I on the dead body of Mst. Majidan on the same day at 5-55 p.m. And 12 incised injuries, including 3 on the neck, and two contused wounds were found on the body. According to the doctor the incised injuries, were caused by a `toka', and the time between the injuries and the death was instantaneous, and between the death anti postmortem wag within 24 hours.
7. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge, and stated that he had been falsely implicated due to enmity. He did not examine any defence witness.
8. P. W. Talib Hussain fully supported the prosecution case in his evidence before the committing Magistrate and this was corroborated by his statement in the first information report. He, however, resiled materially from his statement before the committing Magistrate and tried to implicate Nazir, husband of the deceased, instead. The witness, however, said that the appellant had the said toka in his hand. He admitted having told the committing Magistrate that when the former went in, he saw Mst. Majidan had been thrown to the ground and the appellant was standing near her with the said toka in hand and that they caught hold of the appellant with the toka. He admitted having correctly made his statement in the First Information Report and signed it but said it was not read over to him. He dead up to Matriculation. He said that he mentioned in the First Informination Report the names of P. Ws. Ibrahim, Khuda Bakhsh and Noor Mohammad as eye-witnesses. He said that the aforesaid blood-stained clothes were recovered from the appellant. The witness was confronted with the inconsistent statements made by him before the committing Magistrate and in his First Information Report. The witness was declared hostile and permitted to be cross- examined and his evidence before the Committing Magistrate was admitted under section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
9. It is indeed difficult to believe that if Nazir was the real assailant and his hands and clothes were blood-stained, why the appellant, the father of the deceased, would fail to lodge informa--petition against the murderer of his daughter, and why the police who arrived at the spot would not recover the incriminating articles from the person of Nazir. P. W. Talib Hussain does not say that Nazir escaped. The witness deliberately told a lie when he said that he had mentioned the name of Nazir in his evidence before the committing Magistrate. The evidence of this witness before the Sessions Judge are full of prevarications. He has been contradicted by P. W. Noor Mohammad, who said that he did not see Nazir, husband of the deceased at that time at the house of the appellant. Both P.
10. Ws. Talib Hussain and Nur Mohammad had gone to the house of the appellant together and it was indeed curious that while one saw Nazir with blood on his hands and clothes the other failed to notice his presence altogether. There is no such contradiction in their evidence before the committing Magistrate.
11. Another witness, P. W. Ibrahim said before the Sessions Judge that Nazir. And his wife were present at the house of the appellant and the clothes of Nazir were blood-stained but they were not seized by the police. The witness admitted that he had snatched the toka Exh. P. 6 from the hand of the appellant. This is significant. This witness for the first time introduces the story that the deceased, in her dying statement, implicated Nazir as her assailant.
12. So far as P. Ws. Nur Muhammad and Ibrahim are concerned, it is the repetition of the same story.
13. They too resiled from their evidence before the committing Magistrate and their evidence before the committing Magistrate were admitted under section 288, Cr. P. C. The only difference is that the evidence of P. W. Noor Mohammad before the Sessions Judge is alone sufficient to convict the appellant. P. W. Nur Mohammad has said : "We (that is, he and P. W. Talib Hussain) went into the house of the accused and saw him standing in the courtyard with ruka P. 6 in his hand. By that time the deceased had been murdered and her body was lying inside the kotha. We asked the accused as to what had happened and he told us that he had murdered the deceased due to her immorality. The toka was blood-stained at that time. Khuda Bakhsh and lbrahin arrived thereafter. I took toka P. W. 6 from the accused and then Talib Hussain, Khuda Bakhsh, Ibrahim went to the P. S. We made over Rahmat Ullah accused to the Police at the P. S." and again : "The deceased was reputed to be immoral. Rchuiat Ullah accused was my kammi. He murdered the deceased due to accused because he is our kammi, or that he murdered the deceased due to ghairat."
14. The attempt made by these eye-witnesses to support the appellant before the Sessions Judge shows that far from being inimical they were friendly to him.
15. The evidence of the aforesaid three eye-witnesses, as given before the committing Magistrate and which have now been admitted under section 288 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and have become evidence for all purposes, are fully supported by the medical evidence which has described the nature of the injuries and the nature of the weapons used in causing them. Their evidence are also corroborated convincingly by the recoveries of blood-stained clothes from the person of the appellant as well as of the weapon of offence namely, the blood-stained toka. These incriminating articles have been found to contain human blood.
16. We have carefully examined the evidence in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and we have unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence of the appellant have been rightly maintained by the High Court.
17. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.