Ghulam Abbas aged 24 years was tried by the Sessions Judge, Khushab under section 302, P.P.C.
For having murdered his wife Mst. Mariam in his house at Dera Musallianwala Dakhli Road, at a distance of 16 miles from Police Station Mittha Tiwana, District Khushab, at 12-30 a.m. During the night between 21st and 22nd of June, 1989.
Learned trial Judge vide judgment, dated 6-3-1990 convicted him under section 304, Part I, P.P.C.
And sentenced him to undergo R.I. For 7 years, plus to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 in default whereof to undergo further R.I. For 2 years. The fine, on realization, has been directed to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
2. The convict has filed appeal,
3. F.I.R. Exh.P.D. Was recorded by Muhammad Nawaz, S.H.O. (P.W.10) at 9-5 a.m. On 22~-1989, on the statement of Ahmad Bakhsh (P.W.7).
According to F.I.R. Ahmad Bakhsh had married his daughter Mst. Mariam to Ghulam Abbas (appellant) son of his brother Muhammad Pariah, who was living in a separate Dera nearby, 5-6 years prior to the occurrence. The couple had a son aged 4 years.
The complainant was sleeping in the courtyard on 21-6-1989. He heard the noise of his daughter and Ghulam Abbas, at about mid-night. He ran to their house. Abdullah and Ayub P.Ws. Had also reached there hearing the noise. Ghulam Abbas appellant was abusing his daughter Mst. Mariam, and was saying that she was a loose character, so he will not spare her. Mst. Mariam also returned the abuses, saying that whatever she was doing, was right, whereupon Ghulam Abbas lost temper, brought out a knife from his pocket and gave blows to Mst. Mariam on her chest and neck, as a result of which she fell down. He gave 3 more blows to her on the right thigh. When the complainant went ahead, he was threatened by the appellant. The appellant ran away.
It is stated in the F.I.R. That the accused had suspected that Mst. Mariam was having illicit relations with Karam Din.
4. The S.H.O. After recording the F.I.R. Reached the spot and despatched the dead body for post- mortem examination, after preparing necessary papers. He collected blood-stained earth from the spot. The accused was arrested by him on 18-7-1989. Knife P.5 got recovered by the accused on 28-7-1989 was taken into possession by him vide memo. Exh.P.C. The challan was submitted to Court after completion of necessary investigation.
5. Statements of eleven P.Ws. Were recorded at the trial.
Dr. Capt. Nasir Khan, who had performed autopsy on 22-6-1989 at 6-00 p.m. Appeared as P.W.9. He had noted following injuries on the body of the deceased:--
(1) Cut throat 1-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x bone deep on the left side of front of neck.
(2) Stab wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. On front of chest in midline.
(3) Stab wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. On back of left side of chest 2-1/2 c.m. From midline in the middle.
(4) Stab wound 2-1/2 e.m. x 1 c.m. On right chest 2 e.m. From midline in itsmiddle.
(5) Incised wound 2-1/2 c.m. x 1 c.m. On left chest 2-1/2 c.m. From midline in its middle.
(6) Incised wound 1-1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. On upper part of outer side of left thigh.
On dissection, sternum was found fractured, great vessels, pericardium and posterior surface of right lung were found cut.
Death was opined to have occurred due to injuries Nos.1 and 2, which were opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were opined to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon.
Time between the injuries and death was opined to be within a few minutes while the time between death and post-mortem was opined to be 18 to 24 hours.
6. The ocular account was deposed to be by Allah Bakhsh P.W.7 and Muhammad Abdullah P.W.8.
Allah Bakhsh repeated the facts given by him in the F.I.R. During cross-examination he admitted that Abdullah P.W. Was his first cousin. He stated that his daughter had told him that Ghulam Abbas was blaming her for illicit relations with Karam Din, Phophair of his wife. While stating that he had told him that she had taken oath that the allegation was incorrect, he admitted that she had not taken oath in his presence. He gave out that Ghulam Abbas was living at his Dera alongwith his sisters and brothers, in a house which had a small courtyard with surrounded walls of about one foot height. He expressed ignorance that on the night of occurrence, Ghulam Abbas had come to his house at 10 p.m. For telling him that his wife was missing. He denied the suggestion that he (Ghulam Abbas) had found his wife with one Inayat Ullah in a compromising position and that he had murdered her there and then under grave and sudden provocation.
7. Muhammad Abdullah P.W.8 corroborated the statement made by P.W.7 in so far as it pertains to the actual occurrence. During cross--examination he gave out that he was residing at a distance of one Killa and not eight Killas, as suggested. According to him Allah Bakhsh and Ayub P.Ws. Had reached the spot before his arrival. He denied the suggestion that the accused on having found the deceased in a compromising position with Inayat Ullah, had killed her under grave and sudden provocation. He admitted that mother of the deceased was his Patrair. He denied the suggestion that he had a quarrel with the accused.
Both the witnesses denied the suggestion that they had not witnessed the occurrence.
8. The evidence of recovery of knife at the instance of the appellant was deposed to by Muhammad Riaz P.W.5. He admitted during cross-examination that there was Union Council in the village and there were two Lumberdars and a Councillor also in the village. His statement in this regard has been corroborated by Muhammad Nawaz, S.H.O. P.W.10. Both the witnesses denied the suggestion that the knife had been planted.
9. Muhammad Nawaz, S.H.O. Who had investigated the case, appeared as P.W.10, After giving the account of investigation, he stated that the accused on arrest had taken up the plea before him that he had seen his wife with Inayat Ullah in a compromising position in Sarkandas on occasion of a marriage which had taken place 2-3 days before the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that the accused had stated that such an incident had taken place on the night of occurrence. The suggestion that the accused had appeared before him on first day of the occurrence, was denied by him. The statements of the remaining P.Ws. Are more or less of a formal nature.
10. The appellant during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Stated that his wife had illicit relations with one Inayat Ullah. He stated as follows in answer to the; question, `have you anything else to say'?
"I am innocent. A day prior to the present occurrence the marriage ceremony of Muhammad Rafiq a relative of the complainant had taken place. Mst. Maryam deceased had attended the said marriage wherein Inayat Ullah was also present. On the night of occurrence, as usual I came to my house at 10-00 p.m. Mst. Maryam deceased was missing and later on I found her making love with Inayat Ullah outside the courtyard lying on one cot. Under a grave and sudden provocation I gave her Chhuri blows while Inayat Ullah made good his escape. The complainant has lodged this false case against me by twisting the real facts."
Neither he produced evidence in defence nor made statement on oath.
11. The appeal has been filed through jail. As such nobody represents the appellant. I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeal with the assistance of learned counsel for the State.
12. I have gone through the evidence and perused the impugned judgment. Both the eye-witnesses were related to the deceased but they were related to the appellant as well. There was no previous animosity. In fact the factum of relations of the P.Ws. With the deceased does not carry much importance in view of the fact that the appellant himself did not deny the killing of his wife.
13. The finding of learned trial Judge that the appellant had murdered his wife due to the shameful conduct of the deceased, has not been challenged by the State nor is there any revision petition filed by the complainant. The conclusion arrived at, even otherwise does not appear to be unfounded. The conviction of the appellant under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. Is maintained, being well placed.
14. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 7 years awarded to the appellant seems to be a bit more on the excessive side. The same is reduced to R.I. For 5 (five) years.
The sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 is also excessive. The appellant was a poor Mussalli, who had killed his wife due to her own doings. The sentence of fine of Rs.10,000 is, therefore, reduced to Rs.2,000 (Rs. Two thousand), in default of payment of which, he shall undergo R.I. For six months.
As the killing resulted due to the conduct of the deceased, no order as to compensation, is required.
Appellant shall be given benefit of the provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C,