Appellants Noor Muhammad aged 40 years and Ali Ahmed aged 35 years, both real brothers, were tried by an Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura on a charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. For having caused the murder of Shidan Bibi, sister of the complainant Pir Bakhsh and were of Abdul Ghani, a real brother of the appellants. They were also tried on the charge under section 307/34, P.P.C. For having caused injuries to Sughran and Surraya daughters of the deceased.
Vide judgment dated 18-11-1986, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found both the appellants guilty on both the charges. On the charge under section 302/34, P.P.C., the appellants were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two months each. The appellants were also directed to pay Rs.3,000 each as compensation to the heirs of the deceased or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five months each. On the charge under section 307/34, P.P.C. Both the appellants were sentenced to five years' R.I. Each and to pay a fine of Rs.100 each or in default to suffer R.I. For one month each. On this charge, they were also directed to pay Rs.1,000 each as compensation to be equally distributed among the injured Sughran and Surraya or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two months each.
Aggrieved by their conviction, the appellants have preferred this appeal, which shall be disposed through this judgment.
2. The occurrence resulting into the death of Shidan Bibi and injuries to Sughran and Surraya took place on the night between 21/22nd of March, 1975 in the house of Abdul Ghani, husband of the deceased, in village Bhakhu Thattha, Tashpura situated at a distance of nine miles from Police Station Nankana Sahib. Pir Bakhsh complainant proceeded to the police station for lodging F.I.R. But on his way in village Muhammad Wala, he came across A.S.I. Munir Hussain who recorded the statement of Pir Bakhsh Exh. P.B. And sent the same to the police station for registration of a case.
At the police station, formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was recorded by Abdul Rehman's, Moharrir Head Constable.
The first informant in the FIR stated that he was a resident of Bhakhu Thattha, Tashpura and had cultivated the land of Noor Muhammad resident of Muhammad Wala as tenant. According to the complainant, his sister Mst. Shidan deceased was married with Abdul Ghani, a maternal-cousin of the complainant. Out of the said wedlock, Shidan (deceased) gave birth to Sughran Bibi aged 10/11 years, Zarina aged 7/8 years, Nasim aged 5/6 years, Ruqayya aged 4/5 years and Surraya aged 1-/12 years.
Appellant Ali Ahmed was married to Mst. Amiran daughter of Baloch. Appellant Noor Muhammad abducted Mst. Sakina sister of Amiran, and a daughter of Baloch. Annoyed with the conduct of Noor Muhammad appellant, Amiran abandoned the house of Ali Ahmed and started living with her parents. Bashir and Abbas are sons of Baloch and a brother of Amiran namely Abbas then demanded the hand of Sughran, the niece of the complainant as well as that of appellants so as' to settle the dispute. Appellants then went to Shidan deceased and to demand the hand of Sughran for Abbas but Shidan deceased refused the demand whereupon, she was threatened with dire consequences.
According to the complainant on the refusal of Shidan, 4/5 days before the occurrence, both the appellants visited the house of Abdul Ghani who was not in the house and had gone to Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) in connection with his business of sale and purchase of cattle. Appellants again demanded the hand of Sughran in marriage with Abbas but Shidan refused and stated that her daughter Sughran will be married with the son of the complainant Pir Bakhsh. Appellants annoyed, left the house and while leaving, they threatened Shidan with dire consequences and remarked that they would see as to how Sughran will be married with the son of complainant Pir Bakhsh. On the fateful night, while Abdul Ghani husband of Shidan was away to Faisalabad and the complainant who had come to the house of Abdul Ghani, after putting fodder before the cattle, went back at about Ishawela to his own house. Shidan deceased and her daughters also slept on different cots while the infant Surraya aged 1-1/2 years slept with Shidan in the light of a lantern. At about midnight, complainant awoke and again went to the house of Abdul Ghani to check the cattle when he suddenly heard hue and cry from the house of Shidan (deceased). The complainant rushed to the house of Abdul Ghani and in the meanwhile, Kushi Muhammad and Mohri also reached the house of Shidan and they saw the appellants armed with hatchets and were inflicting injuries to Shidan who was trying to save her life by attempting to scale over the wall.
As a result of the infliction of injuries, Shidan fell in the courtyard and then the appellants gave more injuries with their hatchets on both arms, head and neck of deceased Mst. Shidan.
On the alarm raised by the complainant, Khushi Muhammad and Mohri, the appellants threatened the complainant and the eye-witnesses with dire consequences and thus on account of fear, the complainant and the eye-witnesses could not intervene. During the attack, Sughran to save her mother intervened and fell upon her. Appellants also injured her and thereafter, they left the scene of occurrence while raising Lalkara. The infant child Surraya was also found to have been injured.
3. On 23-3-1975 Dr. Abdur Razzaq, Medical Officer, P.W.13, Civil Hospital, Nankana Sahib medically examined Sughran and noticed the following injuries:-- .
(1)An incised wound 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the right side of back 3-1/2" above the right ear.
(2)An incised wound 1" x 1/4" x skin deep on the inner side of upper part of the right upper arm.
(3)Bruise 3-1/2" x 1" on the back and outer aspect of middle of the right upper arm.
(4) Abrasion 1-3/4" x 1/16" on the back of right upper arm on the lower part above injury No.3.
All the injuries were declared simple. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused with a sharp-edged weapon while the rest were caused with a blunt weapon.
On the same day, Surraya, an infant, was also medically examined and the following injury was noticed:-- An incised wound 1/4" x 1/8" x skin deep on the left temporal region.
This injury was declared simple caused with a sharp-edged weapon.
4. 4 It may be stated here that the autopsy on the dead body of Shidan (deceased) was conducted but the post-mortem report was lost. For the loss of the said post-mortem report, an F.I.R. Exh. P.T. Was lodged with the police.
5. During the investigation from the spot, blood-stained earth from two places were secured vide recovery memo. Exh. P.H. And Exh. P.J. Lantern P.9 was also taken into possession through memo.
Exh. P.K. Dopatta, bedding and bed of the deceased P.10 to P.14 from the spot, were also taken into possession vide recovery memo. Exh. P.L. The blood-stained clothes of Sughran P.7 and P.8 were also secured through memo. Exh. P.D. These memos. Were attested by Noor Ahmed, P.W.8 and Mohri (not produced) besides the Investigating officer. Blood-stained clothes of Mst. Zarina P.15 to P.17 were also taken into possession through recovery memo. Exh. P.N. Attested by the aforesaid witnesses.
6. Both the appellants had absconded and were arrested after about seven years i.e. On 8-4-1982.
The warrants of arrest and copies of the proclamation were not traceable but Constable Abdul Aziz P.W.12, deposed that he was entrusted with the warrants of arrest of the accused, he could not trace the appellants on 27-3-1975 despite his best efforts. The witness further stated that he returned the warrants with his report and thereafter, proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C.
Were initiated and the publication thereof were returned to the Court on 29-5-1975. A.S.I. Munir Hussain, P.W.7 also deposed that he had obtained warrants from the Court but the accused had absconded. Inspector Police Muhammad Khan, P.W.2 stated that he arrested the absconding appellants on 8-4-1982.
After their arrest, the appellants stated before P.W.5 Ch. Abdul Jabbar Inspector Police and P.W.9 Nazir Ahmed, that they had thrown their weapon at a particular place. Exh. P.C. Is the memo of such pointation. This document was however, rightly rejected as inadmissible by the learned trial Judge because it merely amounts to an admission before the police which does not constitute evidence.
The disclosure made by the appellants did not lead to any recovery and it was a joint admission, hence no reliance can be placed on such admission.
7. To prove its case at the trial, the prosecution placed reliance upon the ocular testimony furnished by P.W.3 Pir Bakhsh brother of the deceased and injured witness Sughran P.W.4, the daughter of the deceased. Khushi Muhammad and Mohri cited as eye-witnesses were given up as having been won over. Similarly, Abdul Ghani was also given up by the prosecution. The prosecution also placed reliance upon the evidence as to the motive.
8. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellants denied the charges and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case out of enmity. They further denied to have absconded and stated that they voluntarily surrendered before the police after having come to know that a case had been registered against them. However, they declined to lead any defence evidence
9. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the State, the evidence on the record has been carefully perused and the contentions of the learned counsel for both sides have also been heard.
To begin with, the learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the charge of murder has not been proved inasmuch as, the death has not been proved because of the failure of the prosecution to place on record the post---mortem report of Shidan (deceased). As already observed, the post-mortem report in this case was lost and also the copes thereof and in respect of the missing post-mortem report a case was registered vide F.I.R. Exh. P.T. The learned counsel thus argued that the case of the prosecution does not stand proved.
10. After careful consideration of the contentions of the learned counsel, I am of the view that in the context of the facts of the present case, the death of Shidan Bibi stands proved. The post-mortem report at the most, shows the nature of the injuries and the cause of death. In this case, seemingly reliable and natural witnesses and the inmates of the house have given the version as to the mode and manner of attack. The injured eye-witness Mst. Sughran P.W.4 a young girl and the brother of the deceased Pir Bakhsh, P.W.3, have given a consistent version as to the infliction of the injuries by the appellants with the hatchets on the person of the deceased. Both the witnesses have also consistently stated the receipt of injuries and, therefore, I have no doubt in my mind that this was a deliberate murder on the part of the appellants, on account of the fact that they were annoyed over the refusal on the part of the deceased to give the hand of Sughran injured eye-witness in marriage to the brother of Sakina and Amiran. It may be stated here that Sakina had been abducted by appellant Noor Muhammad, on account of which, the were of the appellant Ali Ahmed namely Amiran had abandoned the house of the appellant Ali Ahmed. A concerted effort was made by both the appellants to arrange the marriage of Bashir or Abbas, (one of the brothers of Amiran and Sakina) with the daughter of the deceased and the said proposal was turned down.
It is thus obvious that for the most selfish ends, the appellants killed the deceased in a cold blood.
It is further pertinent to mention that on the question of death of Mst. Shidan, none of the eye- witnesses was cross-examined and thus their statements went unchallenged. On the other hand, the trend of cross-examination and the suggestion made in cross-examination leads to the inference that the appellants admit the murder of Shidan deceased, inasmuch as, a suggestion was given that Shidan was murdered by the brothers of the were of the complainant.
It is also noteworthy to mention that P.W.1 Murid Hussain, Constable, deposed that he was entrusted with the dead body of Shidan and he got the autopsy conducted by the Medical Officer. In addition thereto, the statement of injuries of Mst. Shidan Exh.P.E. Was produced in evidence and Munir Hussain, A.S.I., P.W.7 proved the said statement of injuries.
Similarly, Munir Hussain A.S.I., P.W.7 and P.W.8 Noor Ahmed are witnesses to the recovery of blood- stained earth taken from two places vide recovery memo. Exh. P.H. And Exh. P.J. The other articles such as bed and beddings P.1 to P.6 and P.10 to P.14, which were found to be stained with human blood clearly corroborate the death of Shidan Bibi as a result of her murder. Similarly, the blood- stained clothes of Sughran P.7 and P.8 were also secured vide memo. Exh. P.D. The statements of injuries of Sughran Exh. P.F. And that of Mst. Surraya EX17.P.G. Were obtained, all these documents coupled with the other facts on the record clearly prove that in the transaction, not only Mst. Shidan was killed but her two daughters were also injured.
Mst. Sughran an injured inmate of the house would be the last person to substitute the real culprits responsible for the murder of her mother, she is a young girl and her statement cannot be lightly brushed aside. Look at the pathetic scene that during the occurrence in order to save her mother, she had been shielding her and in this process, she received the injuries. Pir Bakhsh, P.W.3 the brother of the deceased Mst. Shidan will also not substitute the real culprits.
It was also contended that non-production of Abdul Ghani husband of Shidan deceased and Khushi Muhammad and Mohri was fatal to the prosecution case. The non-appearance of Abdul Ghani in the witness-box is clearly intelligible, inasmuch as, he would not depose against his real brothers and further more, he was not in the house at the relevant time and, therefore, his appearance in the witness-box would hardly make any difference. Khushi Muhammad and Mohri are neighbours and their having been won over at the instance of the defence, cannot be ruled out.
Abdul Ghani himself had been instrumental to win over these witnesses and if at all the defence wanted to make any capital out of their non-production, they could have summoned these witnesses in defence. In this view of the matter, this argument has no merit and is repelled.
As far as the identification of the appellants is concerned, it was stated by the complainant that a lantern was burning when Mst. Shidan and her daughters slept in the house. At that time, the complainant on the instructions of Abdul Ghani, After having put fodder before the cattle had gone to his own house. The recovery of the lantern P.9 is an ample proof that the identification of the appellants by the witnesses was not at all difficult.
Furthermore, the attack was launched while being very close to both the females. Both the appellants were known to Sughran Bibi and thus identification of the appellants by her is unquestioned.
It is noteworthy to mention that the appellants as well as the husband of Mst. Shidan Abdul Ghani are maternal-cousins of Pir Bakhsh, the complainant, P.W.3. The appellants are also thus uncles of Sughran Bibi. It is, therefore, unimaginable that these witnesses would falsely implicate their kith and kin on a false charge. On the other hand, the evidence on the record inspires confidence and in my view, prosecution has brought guilt home to the appellants. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, the conviction of the appellants on both the charges is maintained.
Before parting with this judgment, it is necessary to observe that the charge under section 307/34, P.P.C. In this case also fully stands proved because the sharp-edged injuries were caused to Mst.
Sughran and Surayya on their vital parts of the body.