JAVID IQBAL, J.-Abdul Wahid son of Muhammad Saeed aged 20 years has been convicted under section 302, 1' P. C. And sentenced to death for the murder of Mst. Mumtaz Begum, his step-mother.
He was also convicted under section 404, P. P. C. For dishonest misappropriation of the ornaments taken away from her dead body and sentenced to six months' R. I. The judgment in this case has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, on the 20th March, 1973. The jail appeal of the convict as well as the reference for the confirmation of the sentence of death awarded to him are before us which are being taken up and disposed of together by this judgment.
2. The occurrence took place at 10-00 am. On 2nd May, 1972 in the house of the deceased namely, No. 116-D, Satellite Town, Sargodha, at a distance of two miles from Police Station, Sargodha Cantt.
F. I. R. Exh. P. A. Was lodged by Muhammad Saeed P. W. 20, the husband of the deceased (not an eye-witness) at 2-00 p .m. On the same day and it was recorded by Majidullah A. S. L, P. W. 22.
3. The motive for the crime as set up by the prosecution and indicated from the statement of Muhammad Saeed P. W. Is that Muhammad Saeed P. W. i.e. The husband of the deceased and the father of the appellant had gifted his house of the value of Rs. 15,000 to the deceased in lieu of dower debt. The appellant was the son of Muhammad Saeed P. W. From his first wife who had died during his childhood. The deceased was the third wife of Muhammad Saeed P. W. It is stated that the appellant nurtured a grudge against the deceased on this account as she had deprived him of his share in his father's property.
4. There is no eye-witness of the occurrence. The case of the prosecu--petition against the appellant rests on circumstantial evidence, extra-judicial confession having been made by the appellant, the recoveries made at the instance of the appellant and the medical evidence.
5. The appellant was arrested from the premises of Khayyam Cinema, Sargodha by Muqarrab Khan Inspector Police Y. W. 16 on the 11th of May, 1912. At the time of his arrest rings P. 8 and P. 9 stated to have belonging to the deceased and worn by her at the time of her death were recovered from the pocket of the appellant. These were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. O.
Dated the 11th of May, 1972. The attesting witnesses are Gut Anwar P. W. 14, Muhammad Sadiq P. W.
15 and Muqarrab Khan Inspector Police P. W. 16.
Five days after, at the instance of the appellant, blood-stained knife P. 10 was recovered which was concealed in a hedge near the house of the deceased and was taken into possession vide memo.
Exh. P. R. Dated the 16th of May, 1972. The attesting witnesses are Majidullah A.S. I. P. W. 22, Ahmad A.I P. W. 17 and Muhammad A.I P. W. 18.
On the following day i.e. On the 17th of May 1912, the appellant led the Investigating Officer to the shop of Aziz Din P. W. 8, a Goldsmith at Lyallpur indicating that he had sold ear-rings P. 1/1-2 stated to be belonging to the deceased and worn by her at the time of her death at the value of Rs. 175 to him. These ear-rings were recovered from Aziz Din P. W. And taken into possession vide memo. Exh.
P. C. Dated the 17th of May, 1972. The attesting witnesses are Aziz Din Y. W. 8 and Abdul Latif P. W. 10.
Aziz Din P. W also produced the sale receipt Exh. P. B. Thumb-marked by the appellant although which he had received the payment of Rs. 175 as sale price of the above-said ear-rings. It was taken into possession tide memo. Exh. P. D. Dated the 17th of May, 1972. The attesting witnesses are Aziz Din P.W. 8, Ghulam Rasul P.W. 9 and Abdul Latif P.W.10. According to the statement of Mumtaz Shah, D. S. P. Finger-Print Expert P. W. 2, the thumb-impression on the above said receipt was of the appellant.
According to the report of the Serologist Exh. P. U. Scrapings of knife P. 10 were found to be stained with human blood.
6. Dr. Ghulam Ahmad P. W. 1 conducted post-mortem examina--petition on the dead body of the deceased at 8-00 a.m. On the 3rd of May, 1971 and found on her person 10 incised and stab wounds in neck and chest area. The death in his opinion was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the stab wounds on the left jaw, left side of neck, root of neck and two stab wounds on the chest.
These injuries were sufficient to cause death in tae ordinary course of nature as they were dangerous, whereas the other injuries were simple. All the injuries had been caused by a sharp- edged weapon.
7. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court totally denied having participated in the crime. He disowned knife P.10. As well as recoveries of ornaments belonging to the deceased at his instance. He stated that hr had been falsely implicated in this case on account of suspicion.
8. Abdur Rashid P. W. 13, another son of Muhammad Saeed P. W. And the real brother of the appellant had come to the house of his father after having taken his examination around 10-45 a.m. On the fateful day and found the dead body of his step-mother in the same, who tied been apparently murdered. He raised an alarm and deputed Luqman P. W. 12 for informing his father Muhammad Saeed P. W. Who worked as a Head--master in M. C. Primary School, New Civil Lines, Sargodha. Accordingly Luqman P. W. Went to Muhammad Saeed P. W. And told him that his wife was lying murdered in his house. 0.3 receiving this information he rushed to his house. His son Abdur Rashid P. W. Was present there whereas his other sons had not yet returned from the school.
Then he went to lodge the F. I. It. In which he indicates that the deceased always wore two rings in her fingers and golden earnings which were missing from the dead body. H0 also stated in the F. I.
R. That he had divorced his previous wife because of her mental infirmity. He had married the deceased about 1--years prior to the occurrence and resided with her alongwith his three sons. He did not name any one as the culprit.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for both sides and carefully perused the record. It has already been pointed out that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence. The nature of evidence produced against the appellant is circumstantial. There is testimony of Mehr Muhammad Sadiq Y.
W. 15 before whom the appellant is stated to have made an extra judicial confession. It has been argued before us that the testimony of Mehr Muhammad Sadiq P. W. Does not inspire confidence and therefore, it should not be. Relied upon. In our opinion it would make no difference whether this piece of evidence is relied upon or not because the appellant is implicated in this case through other varieties of circumstantial evidence as well which is further corroborated by the recoveries made at his instance and supported by the medical evidence Mehr Din P. W. 19 has no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. He is a disinterested witness what saw slim coming out of the house of the deceased soon after the occurrence with blood-stained clothes and water marks on them.
Muhammad Saeed P. W., the father of the appellant had not mentioned his name as the culprit in the F. I. R. Nevertheless he had stated in it that the golden ear-rings and rings worn by the deceased were missing from the dead body. We note that rings P. 8 and P. 9 were recovered from the pocket of the appellant at the time of his arrest which were identified by Muhammad Hussain P, W. 21, father of the deceased as belonging to the deceased. Similarly, the appellant led the Investigating Officer to the shop of Aziz Din P. W. To whom he had not only sold the ear-rings identified to be belonging to the deceased for Rs. 175 but also gave a receipt to him which was thumb-marked by the appellant. Finally the appellant led to the recovery of blood-stained knife P.
10. According to the Serologist's report the scrapings of this knife were found to be stained with human blood and the Finger-Print Expert had stated that the receipt of sale of ear-rings P. 1/1-2 bore thumb-mark of the appellant. The attesting witnesses of these recovery memos. Are not inimical to the appellant and they have no motive to falsely implicate him in this case. The nature of the cross-examination of the attesting witnesses was to show that they were people of low status and stock witnesses with criminal leanings but the defence did not succeed in establishing anything against them so as to discredit their testimony. The motive was proved by Muhammad Saeed P. W., the father of the appellant as well as Muhammad Hussain P. W, father of the deceased.
There is also documentary evidence which supports the motive version. We have carefully perused the evidence which has been produced against the appellant in this case and our conclusion is that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the appellants He had murdered his step-mother because for having become the owner of his father's property, she had deprived him of his share in the same. But not only that the appellant caused 10 stab and incised wounds on the neck and chest of the deceased, be deprived the dead body of the deceased of the golden earnings and rings out of which the ear-rings he sold to a Goldsmith and as found to be still carrying rings in his pocket when he vas arrested. In our opinion the convictions as well as the sentences of the appellant in this case were well deserved and they are accordingly maintained.
This appeals is dismissed.
The sentence of death is confirmed.