' The propriety of the judgment dated 24-4-1985 pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, has been questioned in this appeal, who had convicted Mst. Naziran Mai appellant under section 302 of the P.P.C. And had awarded her imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 4,000. Or to suffer three years' R.I. In default thereof. The benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C.
Was, however, extended to her.
2. The facts of this case, as gleaned from the F.T.R. In substance, are that Muhammad Yaseen, the complainant, is a real brother of Gul Muhammad deceased. They were six brothers and lived jointly except their brother Gul Muhammad deceased, who was living apart from them in the proximity of their abode. Gul Muhammad was running a fruit and vegetable shop jointly with Manzoor Hussain.
Gul Muhammad had been married to Mst. Naziran Mai, the appellant, seven years back and she had given birth to two children during the wedlock, who are alive. About a year prior to this incident, Manzoor Hussain developed familiarity with Gul Muhammad and they ran a joint fruit and vegetable shop. Manzoor Hussain was on visiting terms with Gul Muhammad and he dveloped illicit liaison with Mst. Naziran Mai. Habib, the younger brother of Gul Muhammad deceased, once saw the appellant and Manzoor Hussain kissing and embracing each other and he told this fact to his brother Gul Muhammad. On such suspicion, Gul Muhammad was advised to restrain Manzoor Hussain from coming to his house. But both of them, on false presence, satisfied Gul Muhammad that they had no such affair. Subsequently, the appellant used to quarrel with her husband and they hatched a conspiracy to kill Gul Muhammad. Manzoor Hussain was stated to be a vagabond and the appellant did not pay any heed to what the complainant party had said to Gul Muhammad.
3. On 3-6-1982 at about 1-30 p.m., the complainant and others heard an alarm from the house of Gul Muhammad and they rushed to the spot. They saw Manzoor Hussain having mounted on the chest of Gul Muhammad, and was cutting his throat with a Chhuri. They saw the appellant holding the legs of her husband firmly. At the sight of the PWs, Manzoor Hussain and the appellant left Gul Muhammad. Manzoor Hussain threatened the by-standers and scaled over the wall by brandishing his Chhuri in the air. Mst. Naziran Mai was, however, apprehended on the spot.
4. Sufi Muhammad Yaseen lodged the F.I.R. On the same night at 2-0 a.m., which was recorded by Ameer Azam S.I. PW-11. The police went to the spot and collected the blood-stained earth. The appellant and Manzoor Hussain were arrested on 3-6-1982 i.e. On the date of this incident. Manzoor Hussain led to the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri P.3, which was taken into possession vide memo. Ex.P.C.
5. The dead body of Gul Muhammad was sent to the mortuary for autopsy and Dr. Ameer Hussain Khan PW-10 observed the following injuries on his corpse:--
(1) An incised wound on the right side of neck cutting skin thyroid cartilage muscles major and minor blood vessels. Nurves upto the survival vertebrae (spin seen) measuring 15 cm x 5 cm x up to the spin 2 cm from the chin.
(2) An incised wound on thinner eminence of right hand 7 cm x 1-1/2 cm x 1-1/2 cm towards the center of palm.
(3) An incised wound on palmar aspect of terminal phalanx of right thumb size 1-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep.
(4) An incised wound on terminal phalanx of right index finger size 1 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on palmar aspect.
(5) An incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on terminal phalanx of middle right linger on palmar aspect.
(6) An incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on terminal phalanx of right finger of right hand on palmar aspect.
(7) A linear abrasion 4 cm x 1/2 cm x peeling of skin above left axilla and direction.
' In his opinion, injury No,1 was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and injuries Nos.2 to 7 were not of fatal nature. He did not observe any injury on the lower part of the body of the deceased.
6. After the completion of the investigation, the challan of both the appellant and Manzoor Husssa in, was submitted. The appellant was, however, placed in column No,2 of the challan, as she was found innocent by the Investigating Officer. Manzoor Hussain died and the case against him stood abated. As a sequel to the impugned trial, the appellant was awarded the aforementioned punishment.
7. Sufi Muhammad Yaseen PW-4, who is the brother of the deceased, has stated that on the night of occurrence, he was asleep in his house and was attracted by the alarm heard from the house of Gul Muhammad and he saw Manzoor Hussain having mounted on the chest of Gul Muhammad and cutting his throat with a Chhuri whereas Mst. Naziran Mai had caught hold of the legs of his brother. He has also stated the motive for the commission of this crime that Manzoor Hussain had developed guilty associations with Mst. Naziran Mai and in order to clear their way, both of them murdered Gul Muhammad. According to this witness, Manzoor Hussain scaled over the wall after threatening them with dire consequences by brandishing his Chhuri and ran away and the appellant was apprehended at the spot. The house of Gul Muhammad was at a distance of twenty feet from the house of the complainant and the house of his cousin Abdul Karim intervened his house and the house of the deceased. According to the complainant, Abdul Karim was awake at that time, but he did not come to the house of Gul Muhammad. He has conceded the fact that their grandfather owned eight shops and two shops were given to the mother of Mst. Naziran Mai appellant within his life time, which was in possession of the brothers of the appellant. It was suggested to them that the complainant party wanted to have possession of those shops and, therefore, the appellant was involved in a false case. This suggestion was denied by this witness.
8. Muhammad Ismail PW-5, who is a paternal cousin of the deceased, has corroborated the fact that they were asleep in the vacant plot lying on the northern side of the house of the deceased in summer season and Ghulam Rasool and Munir were also sleeping near them. He has added that on the alarm raised by Gul Muhammad, they went there and saw Manzoor Hussain cutting the neck of Gul Muhammad with a Chhuri and the appellant had held the legs of her husband. He has stated that the complainant had reached there after a short while by crossing over the wall. He has corroborated the incident of making love by the appellant and Manzoor Hussain, as seen by the complainant's brother Habib.
9. Ghulam Rasool PW-6, who was a neighbor of Gul Muhammad, was also attracted to the spot and had seen Manzoor Hussain cutting the throat of Gul Muhammad like that of a goat and Mst.
Nazir Mai had held Gul Muhammad by his legs. He has also depicted the motive for the commission of this crime.
10. Muhammad Munir PW-7, who is a first cousin of Gul Muhammad deceased, has corroborated the incident like his fellow-deponents. He has stated that Muhammad Ismail was ahead of them, as he had entered the house of Gul Muhammad firstly. He denied the suggestion that he had caught hold of accused by his hands, on which he had threatened.
' Ameer Azarn Beg Inspector Police PW-11, who had investigated the case and had effected the recovery of the Chhuri from Manzoor Hussain accused, has proved the inquest report Ex. P.J. And has stated that the appellant was found innocent as a consequence of his investigation and he had mentioned this fact in his report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. His investigation was verified by Mr. Asif Nawaz A.S.P.
12. The appellant has explained the incident as under:-- "However, the correct position is that on the night of occurrence, I was sleeping along with my two children while I was pregnant by nine months (I delivered a child in Jail after fifteen days of the occurrence) when I felt a movement in the Charpai of my husband Gul Muhammad deceased. I got up and saw that the throat of Gul Muhammad deceased had been cut and Manzoor Hussain accused, who was holding a Chhuri in his hands threw that Chhuri on the floor and himself ran away crossing over the wall. I raised hue and cry which attracted Ismail and the servant of Tehsildar, who are my neighbors, All the four witnesses, who are my cousins and reside at a distance of 12 shops across the road reached there quite late.
' My grandfather had four sons including my father, who has died, hence my grandfather gave onefourth of his property to my brother which was the share of my father and also to me. On this, my paternal uncles and his sons nursed a grudge against me and while my husband was killed, they thought that the entire property will go to us, hence they have falsely involved me in this case.
Manzoor Hussain deceased had quarrelled with my husband on gambling but I do not know why he had killed my husband."
13. In this case, the P.Ws. Are the relatives of the deceased with the exception of one neighbor.
Manzoor Hussain is stated to have slaughtered Gul Muhammad with his Chhuri when he was not expected to make a noise. The witnesses were asleep at a short distance and it is not credible that they were awakened by the alarm of Gul Muhammad and when they went there they saw the entire incident of murder and the appellant holding the legs of her husband. The appellant was at the stage of advanced pregnancy at the time of this incident and she delivered a child fifteen days after her arrest in Jail. She was not expected to indulge in the ugly act of murder of her husband at that stage. It is not plausible that all the P.Ws., who were attracted to the spot, had seen the appellant holding the legs of her husband. The police investigation shows that she was found innocent. The simple fact that she had an affair with Manzoor Hussain accused was not enough to involve her in the case of murder of her husband. Habib, who had seen Manzoor Hussain making love with the appellant, was not examined as a witness and what all the PWs say about it is nothing more than an hearsay.
14. I, therefore, extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant, accept her appeal and quash the conviction and sentence awarded to her and acquit her. She was released on bail. She is discharged of her hail bond.