Mst. Manzooran wife of Rahim Bakhsh, case Mussali, aged 25 years resident of Basti Khaji Wali, Tehsil Lodhran District Multan, has been tried.And convicted-by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo 4 years' R.I. Vide judgment, dated 3-12-1985.
2. The convict lady has filed appeal through jail (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1987), while another appeal-(Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 1985) has been filed on her .Behalf through her counsel as well.
Both the appeals shall be disposed of by this single judgment.
3. The prosecution case as disclosed at the trial by lumma complainant (P.W.5) father of the deceased girl, namely, Anwar Mai, aged 4 years, was that on the fateful day, i.e. 24-8-1984 at about 6 p.m. The deceased girl went out of her house for playing infront of the house of the appellant and thereafter she did not return home. At this, the complainant searched for her. He asked the appellant about the whereabouts of the girl who expressed her ignorance and advised him to contact Umar Din (P.W.6), who would be in a better position to tell him about the deceased girl.
Umar Din P.W. When contacted by the complainant informed that, the appellant had offered dates to the deceased girl and bad taken her inside the house. At this, the complainant in the company of Umar Din (P.W.6) and Lai (P.W.7) went to Bashir Ahmad Lambardar and told him all about it.
Bashir Ahmad Lambardar alongwith them approached Mst. Maznooran, appellant who confessed her guilt before them saying that because complainant's wife had quarrelled with her over drainage of rainy water on that day, therefore, after killing the girl she had buried the dead body in her courtyard. Jumma P:dV. Reported this matter to Gul Ameer S.I. (P.W.8) who recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.E.
At P.S. Keror Pacca.
4. The S.I. (P.W.8) after registering the F.I.R: visited the place of occurrence. He arrested the appellant on 25-8-1984, who while .In custody, pointed out a place .In her courtyard, from where deceased's dead body was recovered and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. Some blood-stained earth was also removed and secured from there vide memo. Exh.P.G. Kassi (Exh.P.3) was also recovered at her pointation vide memo: Exh.P.H. Dead body of deceased girl was post-mortemed by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal (P.W.2) on 25-8--1984 who found it besmeared with mud. Her face was swollen and cyanosed, eye--lids were swollen, conjunctive were congested, froth was coming from the nose and food material was coming out from mouth and nostrils and her tongue was swollen and protruding. Her chest, pleurae, larynx and trachea were also cyanosed. Right and left lungs were congested and emphysematous. In the opinion of the doctor, deceased girl had died due to asphyxia produced by occlusion of respiratory passage. The time between injury and death was stated to be immediate while the period which elapsed between death and post-mortem examination was given as about 24 hours.
4-A. At the trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case. Of them, Jumma (P.W.5), Umar Din (P.W.6) and Lai (P.W.7) deposed about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before them and also about recovery of dead body on pointation of the appellant made from her courtyard 5.The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the allegation and professed innocence. She did not produce any defence evidence. She however, appeared under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And made a statement on oath denying the allegation.
6.Learned trial Court considering the material on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above, hence this appeal.
7.1 have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the State and also perused the record. The prosecution case hinges mainly on the evidence of extrajudicial confession made by the appellant before P.Ws. Umar Din, Lai and Lambardar Bashir Ahmad and the recovery of dead body made at her pointation from her house. Bashir Ahmad Lambardar has not appeared. Umar Din is son of the sister of the complainant while Lai Din is son of his brother. So the witnesses are closely related to Jumma complainant. Therefore, I have reservation in accepting the evidence of extrajudicial confession which is always considered to be a weak evidence. This piece of evidence is for another reason inadmissible as Umar Din P.W. Clearly admitted that the appellant made the A confession after the Lambardar said to her that she should tell the truth of the occurrence otherwise the matter would be submitted to the police'. The confessional statement was, thus, obtained from the appellant both under promise and threat which proceeded from the Lambardar, a person in authority, therefore, that is hit by section 24 of Evidence Act (Article 37 of Qanun-e- Shahadat 1984), hence this piece of evidence cannot be used against the appellant-The fact, however, remains that the dead body had been recovered from the courtyard of the appellant where it lay buried. The doctor who post--mortemed the dead body stated that it was soiled with mud. It corroborates that it had been disinterred and then sent to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. The recovery of dead body effected from courtyard of the appellant, shows that she had the knowledge about its burial which leads to the irresistible conclusion that she also knew that the girl had been killed, therefore, she with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment buried or helped in burying the dead body to cause disappearance of the evidence.
This act of hers falls within the mischief of section 201, P.P.C. I would, therefore, alter her conviction from: section 302, P.P.C. To section 201, P.P.C. And sentence her to the period of imprisonment already undergone by her, which comes to about four years. She is on bail. She is discharged of her bail bonds.