Muhammad Aslam (22) and his relation Mumtaz (21) were tried for having murderously assaulted Mst. Fateh Bibi. On 2-3-1985, Ch. Abdul Majeed, Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Sargodha, convicted Muhammad Aslam under section 326, P.P.C. And sentenced him to six years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.5,000 in default to undergo two years' R.I. Half of the fine, if realised, was ordered to be paid as compensation to the injured. He was also allowed the benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Mumtaz was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted. The convict has come up in appeal.
2. Appellant desired the hand of Mst. Fateh Bibi in marriage. Since she refused to marry him, he fired at her in the morning of 7th May, 1983, in the fields of village Dera where she had gone for the call of nature. The co-accused was said to have incited him to kill her. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 5 Mumtaz her brother, P.W. 6 Haq Nawaz and P.W. 2 Ata Muhammad her cousin. Mst. Bibi Fateh was carried to the hospital where P.W. 7 D. Muhammad Altaf Hussain S.M.O. DHQ Hospital Sargodhai examined her and found a fire-arm wound on her knee which caused a fracture of the bone underneath.
3. After covering a distance of 10 miles, P.W. 5 Mumtaz reached Police Station, Sahiwal at 10.00 a.m.
The same day and made report Exh. P.A. To P.W. 4 Abid Hussain S.I/S.H.O. After registering the case, the SI went to the place of occurrence, prepared the necessary documents and arrested the accused on 10-5-1983. Carbine P. 1 along with cartridge P. 2 were recovered from his person, these were made into a sealed parcel and taken into possession through memo Exh. P.D. Attested by P.W 6 Haq Nawaz and the Investigating Officer besides Riaz who was given up as unnecessary after completing the investigation, the accused were sent up for trial.
4. In his examination, Aslam denied guilt and ascribed the case to enmity. According to him, one Salehon was murdered by Mst. Fateh Bibi's father whose brother Ali Muhammad in order to avenge the earlier murder fired at Mst. Fateh Bibi's father but accidently the shot hit Mst. Fateh Bibi. In support of his defence, lie produced D.W. 1 Muhammad whose evidence is of no value at all because he did not claim to be a witness of the occurrence.
5. Relying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses, trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case was satisfactorily proved against the appellant. Since Mumtaz was unarmed, therefore, he was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that none saw the occurrence and the witnesses have stage-managed their presence at the spot because of their close relationship with Mst. Fateh Bibi. He next contended that there was enmity of the witnesses with the accused because of the strained relations of Mst. Zarina with her husband who is a brother of the injured. I do not find any force in this submission because Mst. Fateh Bibi has no reason to falsely implicate the appellant in a case of this nature. Moreover, the defence put up by the accused is improbable because according to the appellant Mst. Fateh Bibi's father was with her when Ali Muhammad a brother of Salehon had fired at him in order to avenge his brother's murder. It is noteworthy that the shot hit Mst. Fateh Bibi on the knee with a downward trend, as such the defence version would not fit in the medical evidence because the nature of the injury to the knee and the bone clearly shows that the shot had been aimed at and fired by a person who was at a higher level than Mst. Fateh Bibi. This would fit in with the prosecution case because she was hit when she was sitting to make water.
Obviously her father would not be around at that time. The defence had not made it clear whether at the time of attack Mst. Fateh Bibi or her father were sitting or standing. Had she been injured while she was standing the nature of injury would have then been different than the one she suffered. Her evidence is fully corroborated by the testimony of the remaining eye-witnesses who have no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. The case is overwhelming against the appellant.
His conviction is, therefore, maintained.
7. In so far as the question of sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in fact it was a Watta marriage because Mst. Fateh Bibi's brother was married to Mst. Zarina sister of appellant and in exchange she was engaged to Muhammad Aslam appellant. Since she refused to marry him, therefore, her brother's wife Mst. Zarina went back to her parents. Further for not marrying him, Mst. Fateh Bibi put up a false excuse which provoked the appellant. According to her, he was a vagabond. I have considered the submission. Witnesses have not called him a vagabond. But Mst. Fateh Bibi alleged that the appellant was a man of bad character, therefore, she refused to marry him. Undoubtedly appellant's sister was the wife of Mst. Fateh Bibi's brothers P.W. Mumtaz.
Even he did not say as to why his sister had refused to marry the appellant. In the F.I.R. Also there was no reason given for her refusal to marry the appellant. In all probability there may have been an agreement of a Watta marriage between the parties, which was not honoured by Mst. Fateh Bibi. Under these circumstances the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant would meet the ends of justice. He is in custody since 10-5-1985. The sentence of fine is, however, maintained. The total fine, if realised, shall be paid as compensation to the injured. With this modification the appeal is otherwise dismissed. 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.