' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.-- Thiraj son of Ahmad (40) and Mahmood alias Moonda son of Sultan (45) were sent for trial for the murders of Mst. Amiran and Mst. Bakhan, by. Police Station Bahlak, District Faisalabad. The case came up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who vide his judgment dated 11-6-1985, sentenced Thiraj and Mehmood to death on each count under section 302/34, P.P.C. And a fine of Rs,5,000 each on each count, or in default to undergo R.I. For one year. It was further directed that the fine, if recovered, half of it shall be paid to the heirs of both the deceased, namely, Mst. Amiran and Mst. Bakhan. The case is before us for the confirmation of the death sentence. The convicts have also appealed against their convictions and sentences.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as given by Jafar Hussain, is to the effect that on 17-9-1983, he alongwith his brother Zohra and one other Bashir son of Noor Muhammad were watering their fields at about 12 noon. At about 1 p.m. His wife Mst. Amiran and his mother-in-law Mst. Bakhan brought their meals. The above-said three persons had the food and then took the cattle for grazing. Mst. Amiran and her mother Mst. Bakhan laid down on a cot under a Shisham tree and went to sleep. At about 3 p.m. Thiraj and Mahmood, both armed with Kassis, came there while raising Lalkaras and calling names. Thiraj gave 3/4 blows of Kassi on the right of head, both the shoulders and on the neck of Mst. Amiran. Mahmood accused gave repeated Kassi blows on the head and neck of Mst. Bakhan. On the Lalkaras raised by the first informant and his companions, both the accused alongwith their weapons of offence ran away. When they came near the cot, they found that both the ladies had expired.
' The motive for the commission of the occurrence is that about 20/25 years earlier, said Mst.
Amiran was married to Mahmood. The first informant Jafar Hussain abducted her and she was living with him eversince. Mahmood alongwith his nephew Thiraj had killed Mst. Amiran and her mother because of the said motive.
3. F.I.R. Exh.P.D. Was lodged by Jafar Hussain P.W.5, on 17-9-1983 at 6 p.m. It was recorded by Amir Ahmad, S.H.O., P.S. Bahlak on the same day at 6 p.m. The distance between the place of occurrence and the spot is about eight miles.
4. Amir Ahmad, S.H.O. P.S. Bahlak reached the spot and secured bloodstained earth vide memo.
Exh.P.E. Blood-stained cot P.5 was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. Injury statement in respect of Mst. Amiran Exh.P.L. And her inquest report Exh.P.N. Were prepared by him. Thereafter he prepared the injury statement Exh.P.M. Of Mst. Bakhan and her inquest report Exh.P.O. He despatched the dead bodies to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He arrested the accused on 19-9-1983. On 21-9-1983, Mahmood accused while in custody led to recovery of blood- stained Kassi P.6, which was secured from his residential Kotha vide memo. Exh.P.G. On the same day Thiraj accused also led to the recovery of blood-stained Kassi P.7 from his Kotha, which was secured vide memo. Exh.P.H. He got the recovery memos. Attested from Aslam (not produced) and Bashir P.W. On 24-9-1983, he got the site plan Exh.P.C. And Exh.P.C./1 prepared from the Draftsman and gave his notes in red ink thereunder. After the necessary investigation, he challaned both the accused.
5. Dr. Ahmad Saeed, Senior Medical Officer, Tandlianwala District Faisalabad conducted the post- mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Bakhan, aged about 70 years, on 18-9-1983 at 9 a.m.
He found the following injuries on her body:-
(1) An incised wound 15 c.m. x 2 c.m. Bone deep which was cut on right side of head. The pinna of right ear was also cut into two pieces.
(2) An incised wound 9 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. Bone deep on front of neck in middle more towards right side.
' In his opinion, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were fatal and death had been caused because of haemorrhage and shock caused by the said injuries.
' On the same day at 10 a.m., he also conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Amiran, wife of Jafar Hussain, aged about 50 years. He found the following injuries on her dead body:-
(1) An incised wound 20 c.m. x 2 c.m. Bone deep which was cut on right side of head, going on the right pinna which was also cut.
(2) An incised wound 15 c.m. x 3 c.m. x vertebra cut on back of neck more towards right side, at the level of third cervical vertebra.
(3) An incised wound 7 c.m. x 2 c.m. Vertebra deep which was partly cut, on right side of root of neck, at the level of 6th cervical vertebra.
(4) An incised wound 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. Muscle deep, on back of right shoulder.
(5) An incised wound 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. Muscle deep on front of left forearm lower part.
' Injuries Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were fatal, whereas injuries Nos. 4 and 5 were simple in nature. The death, in his opinion, had occurred due to haemorrhage and shock caused by injuries Nos.1, 2 and 3, which were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
6. The prosecution in support of its case has produced 10 witnesses in all. Muhammad Nawaz, P.W.2 Muharrar Head Constable, Police Station Bahlak was given two sealed parcels containing Kassis which he kept in the Malkhana and on 24-9-1983 handed over the said parcels to Muhammad Rafique, F.C. For onward transmission to the office of Chemical Examiner, Lahore. (ihulam Ali, P.W.3 on 24-9-1983 prepared the site plan Exh.P.C. And Exh.P.C./1 in the scale of 40 Karams = 1 (one) inch.
Jafar Hussain, P.W.5 and Bashir Ahmad, P.W.6 have given the eye-witness account. Bashir son of Fazil, P.W.7, witnessed the recovery of blood-stained Kassis effected at the instance of both the appellants. He attested both the recovery memos. The case was investigated by Amir Ahmad, S.H.O., Police Station Bahlak. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination has already been discussed. Rest of the witnesses are of formal nature, therefore, need not be discussed here.
7. At the conclusion of the trial, appellants were examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Without oath, wherein they have refuted the prosecution evidence and have stated that about 6 days before the occurrence, both the deceased had entered into an agreement to sell the land in favour of one Manzoor. This was resented by Jafar Hussain P.W., husband of Mst. Amiran, therefore, he committed the murders and falsely invovled them. They also admitted that Mst. Amiran was earlier married to Mehmood appellant about 25 years ago, but was abducted by Jafar Hussain. The appellants also produced four defence witnesses. Ghazanfar Ali Bhatti, D.W.1, is a stamp vendor, and has stated that on 5-9-1983 a stamp paper worth Rs,4 was purchased by Mst. Bakho from him for writing an agreement in favour of one Manzoor Hussain. Ahmad Yar, D.W.2 attested the agreement to sell the land Exh.D.B./1. Manzoor Hussain, D.W.3 has stated that both the deceased entered into an agreement to sell their agricultural land for a consideration of Rs,24,000 which he accordingly paid and obtained receipt Exh.D.C. For the same. He has further stated that the possession of the land in question was delivered to him at the spot. Muhammad Ishaq Sabir, D.W.4 is a Notary Public and had attested the document Exh.D.B.
8. The learned trial Court while convicting the appellants, relied upon the evidence of the motive, the eye-witness account and the medical evidence.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the motive, as set up by the prosecution, is highly improbable. Submits that the motive, if any is 25 years old and the parties have been living in the same village eversince but no unpleasant incident ever took place. Submits that the prosecution has not shown any immediate motive for the commission of the offence.
Submits that the recovery of blood-stained Kassis at the instance of the appellants cannot be of any use because the appellants were arrested on 17-9-1983 and two days later on 19-91983 they led to the recovery of blood-stained weapons. During this period of two days, the appellants could easily do away with the weapons of offence. It shows that the recovery is fake. Contends that the recovery witness Bashir, -P.W.7 is a nephew of the first informant, therefore, an interested witness.
Contends that no reliance on the eye-witness account can be placed because both of them are interested and inimical. Submits that the village where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place, consists of about 2,000 people but no independent witness has been produced by the prosecution. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants have been controverted by learned counsel for the State.
10. We have heard the learned counsel at length and perused the record. The motive, as given by Jafar Hussain P.W.5 and corroborated by Bashir P.W.6 is that earlier Mst. Amiran was married to Mehmood appellant but she was abducted by Jafar Hussain P.W. About 25 years back. The appellants in their statements under section 342, Cr.P.C. Also accepted this position. Therefore, the incident of abduction which took place 25 years earlier is proved but there is some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that both the sides have been living in the same village eversince the abduction but no unpleasant incident ever happened. In these circumstances, the incident of abduction cannot be treated as motive for the present occurrence.
' The eye-witness account furnished by Jafar Hussain and Bashir Ahmad, P.Ws. 5 and 6, respectively is to the effect that on the fateful day both of them alongwith Zohra were irrigating their fields when Mst. Amiran and Bakhan brought their meals. After having the meals, they took their cattle for grazing and both the ladies lay down on a cot under a Shisham tree and went to sleep. Within their view both the appellants armed with Kassis came there and gave Kassi blows to the ladies resulting_ in their death. Both the witnesses have been cross-examined at length but the defence has not been able to bring anything on the record, which could suggest that the witnesses were not present at the spot or they are suppressing the material facts. As a matter of fact, the place where the occurrence took place was owned by the wife of Jafar Hussain P.W., and it is also in evidence that he was cultivating the same land. In these circumstances, his being present at the scene of occurrence is natural. The defence has not been able to bring on the record anything which could suggest that the eye-witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate the appellants. On the other hand, the motive as set up by the prosecution and accepted by the defence indicates that the appellants could have a grudge against Jafar Hussain, P.W., as he had abducted the wife of Mehmood, appellant, but Jafar Hussain P.W. Could not possibly have any motive to falsely involve the appellant. The argument of learned counsel for the appell,nts that both the witnesses are inter se related and also relation of the deceased, therefore, may not be relied upon is without force. As has already been held that both the eye-witnesses arc independent and had no motive to falsely implicate the appellants, therefore, can safely be relied upon. Going through the testimony of the eye-witnesses, we hold that it inspires confidence and can safely be relied upon. It is, therefore, held that Jafar Hussain and Bashir Ahmad, P.Ws., were present at the scene and witnessed the occurrence committed by the appellants.
11. The defence witnesses produced by the appellants do not help them. The D.Ws. Have proved that both the deceased had sold their land to Manzoor Hussain D.W. The learned defence counsel tried to show that the complainant did not like the sale of the land, therefore, he murdered the deceased. This argument is not acceptable because if the complainant had the motive then he should have done to death the vendor, who was to dispossess him.
12. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, it requires consideration. We have already held that the motive, as set up by the prosecution, has been accepted by the defence but the same cannot be the basis for the comission of the present occurrence after a period of 25 years. The immediate motive for the commission of the murder is not available on the file. In the absence of immediate motive, we feel the sentence of imprisonment for life would meet the ends of justice.
' For what has been discussed above, while dismissing the appeal we convert the sentence of death of Thiraj and Mehmood appellants under section 302/34, P.P.C. To imprisonment for life on each count. The sentence of fine awarded by the learned trial Court is, however, maintained Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The appellants shall also be given the benefit of sectionr 382- B, Cr.P.C. Death sentences are not confirmed.