MUHAMMAD AMUR MALIK, Abdur Rahman appellant (25 years) on trial for the murder of Arshad (10/11 years), the son of Muhammad Nazir complainant (P.W.4), was convicted and sentenced to suffer death and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or in default thereof two years R.I. Also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- to the heirs of the deceased by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. He has appealed while the matter is also before us for confirmation of the death sentence under Section 374 Cr.P.C.
2. Arshad deceased, the son of Muhammad Nazir complainant ( P.W.4) left the house on 16.4.1986 at about 3.00 p.m. And did not return till evening. The complainant felt apprehensive and taking along his brothers Siddiq and Allah Ditta, searched for him in the village. Even an announcement was made in the mosque but his whereabouts could not be found. The search was continued on the next day. The deadbody was found lying on a watt of the field of Irshad Rajput near Dera Bholianwala in village Kaloke at a distance of 5 miles from Police Station Saddar, Sheikhupura. The hands were lied on the back and the body indicated that he had been slaughtered (neck). The body was blood-stained.
3. Giving the above facts the complainant made statement (Ex.PA) to Muzafar Hussain, S.I.(P.W.15) on 17.4.1986 at 2.00 p.m. In the District Courts at Sheikhupura. It was sent to the Police Station where formal FIR(Ex.PA/l) was registered by Abdur Rashid, MHC (P,W,1) on the same day at 2.15 p.m.
4. In the F.I.R, the complainant further give the version that he had no enmity with anybody nor he had suspicion against anybody.
5. Muzaffar Hussain, S.I.(P.W.15), after recording the statement of the complainant (Ex.PA) and sending it to the Police Station for registration of the case, reached the spot. The deadbody was lying in the field of Irshad near Dera Bholianwala. He prepared the injury statement and inquest report (Ex.PH & PJ) and sent the deadbody for post-mortem examination. He recovered blood- stained earth from the spot and sealed it into a parcel vide (Ex.PD). Abdur Rahman appellant was arrested by Muhammad Younas Inspector SHO(P.W.16) on 3.5.1986 Muzaffar Hussain, S.I. Continued the investigation and interrogated the appellant. On 15.5.1986 he made disclosure and led to the graveyard of Dera Bholianwala and got recovered blood-stained Chhurri (P.5) and his blood- stained Shirt and Shalwar (P.6 & P.7) from an old grave. These were secured vide memos. (Ex.PE & PF) and sealed into parcels. The scaled parcels of earth, the clothes and Chhurri were deposited by him with the Muharar in due course.
6. Dr. Asif Mahmood (P.W.11) performed the autopsy on the deadbody of Arshad deceased on 17.4.86 at 5.30 p.m. It was the deadbody of a boy aged about 10/11 years with mouth and eyes closed, face pale, having no rigor mortis but slight post mortem staining with arms tied behind with a piece of cloth, attired in a blood-stained shirt and Shalwar. He observed an incised wound 17 cm x 5cm on the front of neck cuting all its distinctures and second cervical vertebra and vertebral column. The head was attached with the neck only with skin posteriorly. In the opinion of the doctor the injury was ante-mortem, caused by a sharp-edged weapon and sufficient to result in death in ordinary course of nature.' Death was immediate and the time between death and post-mortem examination was stated to be within 24 hours.
7. At the trial Abdur Rahman (P.W.9) was produced to state about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to him on 19.4.86, Nazir complainant and his daughter-in-law Mst. Mumtaz Bibi (P. Ws.4&5) to state their relationship with the appellant and the motive, Muhammad Rafiq (P.W.14) to depose about the last-seen, Abdul Qayyum (P.W.8) to provide Wajtakar evidence, Abdur Rahman s/o Nawab Din (P.W.10) to slate about the recovery of bloodstained Chhurri and clothes at the instance of the appellant.Dr. Asif Mahmood (P.W.11) provided the medical evidence while the case was investigated by Muzaffar Hussain, S.I. (P.W.15).
8. The appellant, at the close of the trial in his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., admitted that his wife Mst. Shehnaz and Mst. Mumtaz Bibi (P.W.5), the wife of Ashraf son of Nazir, complainant and brother of Arshad deceased, were real sisters. He claimed that he had been involved due to suspicion and was taken by the Chairman of his Union Council on 19.4.86 and arrested by the Police on that very day.
9. Nazir complainant (P.W.4) deposed that Abdur Rehman appellant and his (complainant's) son Ashraf were married to real sisters Mst. Shehnaz Bibi and Mst. Mumtaz Bibi respectively. In Cross- examination he told that Abdur Rahman s/o Mustaqeem (P.W.9) was the father-in-law of his daughter. He(Abdur Rehman) was the brother of his own daughter-in-law Mst. Mumtaz Bibi, sister of Muhammad Ramzan (given up P.W> who was examined alongwith Abdur Rehman as to extra- judicial confession during investigation).Abdur Rehman himself (P.W.9) informed the Court that Mehraj Din father-in law of Abdur Rehman appellant was his (P. W.'s) maternal uncle.
10. From the statements of the two witnesses and the admission made by the appellant himself as referred to above it is very much apparent on the record that the complainant, Abdur Rehman (P.W.9 as well as the appellant are closely related. Before the occurrence there was no enmity or ill will between them nor any has been suggested to any witness in cross-examination.
11. Nazir complainant (P.W.4) supported the version given in the FIR that the deceased left the house at 3.00 p.m. On 16.4.1986, did not return till evening, search was made, but to no avail and finally the deadbody was discovered at about 11.30 a.m. In the field of Irshad in village Kaloke with hands tied with a piece of cloth on the back and throat cut. He also deposed that on evening of 17.4.1986 his daughter-in law Mst. Mumtaz Bibi told him that at about noon time a month before the occurrence when she was alone in the house washing clothes, the appellant reached there, caught hold of her, took her in the room and raped her. Arshad deceased came there and saw the appellant committing Zina. The boy .Told the appellant that he would inform his father and brother about it and in turn the appellant threatened him not to convey the information. While under cross- examination he told that his son Ashraf lived with him alongwith Mst. Mumtaz Bibi but he had no information about the appellant having committed Zina-bil- Jabr with her till she disclosed this fact to him on 17.4.86 and even Ashraf did not talk to him about it. Mst. Mumtaz Bibi herself (P.W.5) stated that at about 1.00 or 1.30 p.m. When she was alone in the house and washing clothes, the appellant reached there, called her to the room and committed Zina-bil-Jabr with her, Arshad deceased, who was a student of Class I returned home and saw them having sexual intercourse.
On this the appellant had started extending threats to the boy that in case he disclosed the fact, he would not be spared. She further stated that she kept quiet for nearly a month and then apprised her father-in-law three days alter the disappearance of the deceased. In cross-examination she informed that she had no illicit connection with the appellant but due to the act of the appellant she was annoyed with him. She also stated that when the appellant had left she told the deceased not to talk about it to anyone nor he talked to anyone. She also deposed that when the deceased disappeared it did not occur to her that the appellant might have a hand in it but after the recovery of the deadbody and its burial it came to her mind that the mischief might have been done by the appellant. According to her the deceased was buried at about 8.00 or 8.30 p.m. And at that very night she told his father-in-law in the presence of her husband and her mother-in-law as to What the appellant had done with her. From the statement of Mst. Mumtaz Bibi it is clear that the appellant committed Zina with her at the house at noon time about a month before the occurrence and the deceased boy had the chance to sec them during the sexual intercourse. She clearly stated that she had no illicit connection with the appellant and that due to the act of the appellant she eas annoyed with him. She was not further cross- examined. Her statement rings true. To keep her own as well as her sister's family life smooth, it seems, she Kept1 quiet but even if it be said that she was having liason with the appellant, still the fact is proved that the deceased boy had the Occasion to sec her in the sexual act with the appellant. This naturally must have caused a grave apprehension to the appellant. It was only after the murder had taken place that Mst.
Mumtaz Bibi told her father-in-law Nazir complainant who seems to be a truthful person. He frankly stated that Majid, the father of the^ appellant was taken away by police for interrogation on 18.4.86 and the appellant surrendered to the police on the next day i.e. 19.4.86. Muhammad Younis, Inspector has stated that he arrested the appellant on 3.5.86 but this seems to be an incorrect statement. As would be discussed hereunder the squench of events indicates that when the fact of the deceased having been last-seen with the appellant and the appellant's mischief with Mst.
Mumtaz Bibi, were known, firstly the father of the appellant was taken, by the police for interrogation and on the next day the appellant himself appeared before the police. The appellant thus had the strongest possible motive to finish the deceased.
12. Abdur Rehman s/o Mustaqim (P.W.9), a close relative of the complainant and the appellant, stated that at about 4.00 or 5.00 p.m. When he was present in his Haveli alongwith Ramzan (given up P.W.), the appellant in the company of his father-in-law Mehraj Din, reached there and confessed the murder. Mehraj Din (the maternal uncle of Abdur Rehman, P.W.), according to Abdur Rehman asked him to prevail upon the complainant not to report the matter to the police and effect a compromise. He also Stated that the cause of murder given by the appellant was the estranged relations with Ashraf, the son of the complainant, as Ashraf was suspecting his licit connection with Mst. Mumtaz Bibi. He also stated that the appellant further admitted that he had once caught hold of Mst. Mumtaz Bibi and having raped her. Even in cross-examination nothing could be extracted from him except that he ventured to say that on 19th & 20th of April, 1986 he did not disclose about the confession of the appellant to the complainant till 22.4.86 when he was examined by the police. He was the most natural person to be approached by the appellant and his father-in-law to get effected a compromise with the complainant because his soil was married to a daughter of the complainant. He was the nearest relative of both the parties and so the approach to him. He is completely zn< independent and disinterested witness and the statement made by him is believable and was correctly accepted by the learned trial Judge.
13. Muhammad Rafiq (P.W.14) informed the Court that he and Ghulam Rasool(given up P.W.)were standing at Sargodha-Sheikhupura Road in wait for a bus to go to Lahore when at about 4.00 p.m.
The deceased came out from the nearby street and Abdur Rehman reached on cycle, called the deceased, seated him in front of the cycle and when asked where he was taking Arshad, replied that they were going to the brick-kiln where he workcd the further stated that he and Ghulam Rasool were away to Lahore for about three days and when he returned, informed Nazir complainant about the deceased having gone with the appellant. He was not put to any serious cross-examination on the point. He is also an independent and disinterested witness.
14. Abdul Qayyum(P.W.8) has raised Wajtakar evidence. He deposed that about a year back he was irrigating within village Machhike, the appellant came from the side of Dera Bholiana Bibi of village Kaloke in a brisk pace and passed from a distance of about ten feet from him. On query he told that he had gone to Dera Bholianwala to run an errand. According to him, the appellant was behaving in a confused manncr. He too is an independent and disinterested witness.
15. As discussed and concluded above the mischief of the appellant with Mst. Mumtaz Bibi was known after the burial of the deceased on the night of 17th on 18th the father of the appellant was taken away by the police and on the next day i.e. 19th the appellant himself surrendered to the police. He was interrogated by Muzaffar Hussain, S.I. And on 15.5.86 he led to the graveyard near Dera Bholianwala in village Kaloke and got recovered Chhurri and his blood-stained Shirt and Shalwar (P.5,6 16, The upshot is. That the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant is corroborated by the motive part of the story the evidence as to last-seen the Wajtakar evidence and the recovery of the blood-stained clothes of the appellant and blood-stained Chhuri- at his instance from the graveyard from near the spot. The charge was correctly held to have been proved against the appellant by the learned trial Judgc. The contention of the learned counsel for, the appellant that the extra-judicial confession could not be believed unless corroborated is without any force. In view of the close relationship between the complainant the appellant and Abdur Rehman (P.W.9) even the extra-Judicial confession without any corroboration, is sufficient to conclude the matter against him but as discussed above there is overwhelming evidence corroborating the extra- Judicial confession.
17. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The death sentence is confirmcd. The Reference is answered accordingly.