Mst. Mehran (45) widow of Murtaza was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Chiniot for having murdered him (Murtaza) on 26-4-1987 at 10/11 p.m. In his house at his Dhari in Chak &o.Ll/G.B. At a distance of 12 miles from Police Station Saddar, Chiniot, District Jhang.
2. Learned trial Judge vide judgment, dated 29-5-1989 convicted her under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life plus to pay a fine of Rs.10,000, in default whereof to undergo R.I. For six months. Half of the fine, on realization, was directed to be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased.
3. The convict has filed appeal through jail.
4. F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was registered at police station by Hakim Khan M.H.C. (P.W.7) at 6-40 a.m. On 27-4- 1987 on receipt of statement Exh.PA. Of Barkat Ali (P.W.1) recorded by Bashir Ahmad A.S.I. (P.W.9) at 6-30 a.m. On the same day at Tehsil Chowk Chiniot.
5. According to F.I.R. Murtaza (deceased) had built a Dhari in Killa No. 25 of his land and was residing there with his family. His (deceased) brothers Barkat Ali (complainant) and Wazir and Jahangir, husband of their sister had also constructed houses in their lands and were residing there. Murtaza was married to Mst. Mehran (appellant) 25/30 years prior to the occurrence. They had four sons and a daughter. Muhammad Yaqub, the eldest son, was married to Mst. Ferozan a month before the occurrence in exchange of the marriage of Noor Asia daughter of the deceased.
Muhammad Yaqub went back to join duty 3/4 days before the occurrence. Mst. Ferozan stayed in the house of Murtaza. He used to show regard to Mst. Ferozan for being daughter-in-law. Mst.
Mehran was unhappy. She levelled allegation of illicit relations between Mst. Ferozan and her husband. At 12 noon on the day of occurrence they quarrelled among themselves in the presence of complainant. He got the matter patched up. The complainant after having taken supper went to the house of his brother as the husband and wife had quarrelled. The complainant went to sleep in the house of Murtaza. Mst. Mehran also went to sleep. Their cots were nearby. A burning lantern was placed on the Khudda of hens. The complainant woke up at 10/11 p.m. Hearing shrieks of Murtaza and saw Mst. Mehran giving blows with Kulhari to Murtaza. He raised alarm. Mst. Mehran threatened him. In the meantime, Wazir their brother and Mst. Nooran their sister also came running there: In their presence also, Mst. Mehran inflicted more blows to Murtaza as a result of which he suffered injuries on the right cheek, throat and head. Murtaza was slaughtered because of the blows. He died at the spot. Ferozan who was sleeping nearby was awoken-up by the P.Ws. Mst. Mehran threw the Kulhari and hid herself in the garden.
6. Bashir Ahmad A.S.I. After despatching statement Exh.PA. To police station for registration of the case reached the spot. He despatched the dead body for post-mortem after preparing injury statement Exh.P.J./1 and inquest report Exh.P.J. Blood-stained earth was collected by him vide memo. Exh.P.G. Blood-stained hatchet was picked up and taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F.
He arrested Mst. Mehran on 2-5-1987.
7. The case was also partly investigated by Muzammil Hayat Inspector/S.H.O. Challan was submitted to Court after completion of necessary investigation.
8. Statements of 9 P.Ws. Were recorded at the trial.
9. Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Hussain Chatha who had performed autopsy on 27-4-1987 at 6-40 a.m.
Appeared as P.W.6. He had noted following injuries on the body of the deceased:--
(1) An incised wound 14 c.m. x 3 c.m. Bone deep on the right face, right maxillary bone was cut.
(2) An incised wound 10 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. The right neck muscles and vessels deep, all the major vessels were cut.
(3) An incised wound 8 c.m. x 4 c.m. Bone deep cutting the lower half of chin.
(4) An incised wound 9 c.m. x 3 c.m. On the front of neck just below the thyroid cartilage cutting the trachea and oesophagus alongwith vessels.
(5) An incised wound 8 c.m. x 3 c.m. Bone deep on the back of right hand cutting the tendons and metacarpel bones of Nos.1, 2 and 3.
(6) An incised wound 6 c.m. x 2-1/2 c.m. Bone deep just below the right elbow joint.
Trachea was found cut. The death was opined to have occurred due to haemorrhage. Injuries Nos.2 and 4 were opined to be individually also sufficient to cause death. Time between injuries and death was opined to be instantaneous while time between post-mortem and death was opined to be about 15 hours. During cross-examination, he stated that possibly the attack was launched from the right side and it was not from the back side.
Ocular account was deposed to by Barkat Ali (P.W.1) and IAst. Nooran (P.W.2).
7. Barkat Ali while repeating the facts given by him in the F.I.R. Did not mention about the marriage of Yaqub son of the deceased with Mst. Ferozan a month before the occurrence nor did he state that Yaqub had left the village for joining h%s duties in the Army 3-4 days before the occurrence.
During cross--examination he admitted that P.W. Wazir was his brother, Mst. Nuran was his sister and Jehangir was husband of Mst. Nuran. He admitted that his father was murdered for which his brother Shera was challaned. He stated that after the murder of his brother, Yaqub had sold the debris of the house and the land was in their possession. In answer to a question he stated that Mst. Mehran appellant had no doubts of illicit relations of the deceased with Mst. Ferozan but she objected as to why the deceased loved Mst. Ferozan more than her. He stated that jealousy had developed 4-5 days before the occurrence. He stated that Mst. Ferozan had not woken up during the occurrence but had got up 10 after the P.Ws. And other persons had collected at the spot.
According to him Lumberdar Anwar Sadhu and Shamir Chowkidar had accompanied hint to lodge the F.I.R. He gave out that when the police reached the spot the appellant was present there and she was apprehended by the police. He stated that the hatchet was lying under the cot of the deceased.
8. Mst. Nuran while corroborating the statement made by P.W.1 about the commission of murder by Mst. Mehran, stated that the accused had a grievance that her husband loved his daughter-in-law more than her. During cross-examination she stated that Mst. Ferozan was married to Yaqub two months prior to the occurrence and Mst. Mehran had started quarrelling with her husband 2-3 days prior to the occurrence. In answer to another question she stated that Mst. Mehran had fled away from the place of occurrence and concealed herself in the nearby bamboo plantation, as she feared death. According to her Mst. Ferozan had also got up hearing the noise and had tried to stop the accused from killing the deceased. She stated that the persons who had gathered on their noise, stood outside their Haveli and none came near them. She gave out that the appellant after committing the murder placed the hatchet under the cot and washed her clothes and hands under a hand-pump nearby. She denied the suggestion that the murder was committed by Wazir P.W. And Mst. Mehran was involved falsely.
9. Muhammad Wazir P.W.5 corroborated the statement made by P.W.1 and P.W.2 that Mst. Mehran had caused the death of the deceased by inflicting blows with hatchet. During cross-examination he stated that the deceased was married to Mst. Mehran 35 years prior to the occurrence while Mst. Ferozan who was aged 13/14 years was married to Yaqub a month before the occurrence.
According to him Mst. Ferozan was a child and she had woken up after Mst. Mehran had fled away and they were sitting near the dead body. According to him Lumberdar and Chowkidar had also witnessed the occurrence and accompanied his brother to the police station. He denied the suggestion that he had committed the murder of Murtaza in connivance with his brother and sister.
He denied the suggestion that they involved Mst. Mehran as she was intending to involve them in the murder of her husband.
10. Bashir Ahmad A.S.I. Who had registered the case, carried investigation at the spot and arrested the appellant on 2-5-1987, appeared as P.W.9 and gave details of the investigation. During cross- examination he stated that he did not know Bashir Chowkidar and Anwar Sadhu Lumberdar. They had neither accompanied the complainant, to him nor joined the investigation. According to him.
Mst. Ferozan was not at the spot when he had gone there.
11. Muzammal Hayat, S.H.O. Who had also, partly investigated the case, appeared as P.W.8 and gave the details of investigation. The statements of the a remaining P.Ws. Are more or less of a formal nature.
12. The appellant during her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied the prosecution case as a whole and pleaded innocence. She stated as follows in answer to the question, `why this case against you'?
"In fact the brothers of my husband had been quarrelling with the deceased and when on the night of occurrence, I raised hue and cry, I had doubts that they had murdered the deceased but I could not express the same because of apprehension of my own life. Nooran was the sister of the deceased and wife of Jehangir, but she was having illicit relations with one Wahla whose name I do not know, but who was posted sometime as Hawaldar to look after the godowns of Food Department. My husband Murtaza stopped hire from coming to out house, while remaining brothers of the deceased used to favour him. Then they got my husband murdered with the help of this Wahla and then Wahla enticed away Mst. Nooran. In fact, Jehangir was an important witness in this case but later on he was omitted lest truth should come out."
13. She produced in defence Exh.D.C. Copy of F.I.R. Exhs.D.D., D.E., D.F. And D.G. Copies of statements of Mst. Fatima, Mst. Bashiran,Muhammad Wazir and Balik respectively. She did not make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
14. Muhammad Anwar, Sarbrah Lumberdar was examined as C.W.1. He stated that his father Sadhu was too old to perform duties. He stated that he was not in the village on the night of occurrence, nor had witnessed the occurrence.
15. Shamir Chowkidar while appearing as C.W.2 stated that he had not seen the occurrence and was called by the mother and sister of the deceased where he was informed that Murtaza was murdered. During cross-examination by the D.DA. He stated that they had not told him the name of the murderer. During cross-examination by the defence counsel he stated that when he went to the spot, Mst. Mehran was sitting with the dead body and weeping. Later he changed the statement and stated that she was not weeping but was smoking Huqqa and sitting quiet.
16. 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.
17. The prosecution case that the appellant murdered the deceased as she suspected him of having illicit connections with Mst. Ferozan wife of their son Yaqub, does not inspire confidence.
18. Yaqub son of the deceased was married to Mst. Ferozan a month before the occurrence. He had left the house to join his duties in the Army 4-5 days before the occurrence. Mst. Ferozan was only 13-14 years of age. The deceased could not have developed illicit connections with a girl of that age, married only 4 weeks before his death, to his son. The appellant who is mother of 4 sons and a daughter, two of whom, i.e. a son and daughter were married, a month before the occurrence, could not have even begotten that suspicion, being a woman of advanced aged (50-55 years).
She could have assessed that her husband who was sixty, could not cultivate such relations with a girl of that age, and that too, within a span of 3-4 weeks, during which husband of the girl was also residing in the house. Mst. Ferozan was of such a tender age that according to P.Ws.l and 5 she did not even wake up during the whole occurrence and had woken up after the occurrence was over.
In the circumstances, it can be ruled without any hesitation that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving motive for the occurrence.
19. The occurrence was alleged to have been witnessed by Barkat Ali P.W.1, Mst. Nuran P.W.2, Wazir P.W.5 and given up P.W. Jehangir. Two of them were brothers of the deceased, one was sister and one was husband of his sister. Apart from them the deceased had a son aged 17-18 years and a son aged 13-14 years, who were also living in the same house. Mst. Ferozan daughter-in-law of 'the deceased was also sleeping in the same house, close to the cots of other residents of the house.
The appellant who was a lady of 50-55 years could not have been so ferocious that all of them could not have intervened to save the deceased who was so closely related to them. It is also in evidence that apart from these persons, other villagers bad also come to the house of the deceased hearing alarm and had remained standing outside the gate. Firstly, it is impossible to believe that they would have remained standing outside the house because the door was open and they would have naturally entered the house and played their role, of either witnessing the occurrence or attempting to save the deceased. According to P.W.2 the appellant after having murdered the deceased had placed the hatchet under his cot and had thereafter washed hands and clothes under the hand-pump. If the witnesses had not picked up the courage of catching her when she was holding the hatchet, they could have easily caught her at that time.
According to P.W.5 Lumberdar and Chowkidar of the village had also reached there and witnessed the occurrence. As such they would also have been available to help them in apprehending the appellant at the spot. It is also in evidence that when the police came, she was present at the spot.
In fact one of the witnesses stated that the police had apprehended her. The factual position as deposed to by the Investigating Officer, i.e. Bashir Ahmad, A.S.I. (P-W.9), was that he had effected the arrest of the appellant on 2-5-1987, i.e. 6 days after the occurrence.
20. The statements of the eye-witnesses, in the circumstances, read as .i whole, do not inspire confidence at all. Their testimony is not only incoherent but contradictory to each other on many aspects, i.e. As to who were the persons apart from them who had witnessed the occurrence, was the appellant caught at the spot or had slipped away, whether the Lumberdar and Chowkidar had accompanied the complainant to lodge the F.I.R. Or the complainant had gone alone to report the matter.
21. It is on record that father of the deceased was murdered. His son Shera was named as accused while the other sons and his daughter including the P.Ws. In this case, were witnesses against hire.
Although the suggestion put on behalf of the appellant that he was murdered by Shera in connivance with other brothers and sister and that they had resiled from their statements during the trial, was denied, but the fact stands admitted that Shera was acquitted.
22. It is also on record that after the murder of the deceased his son Yaqub sold debris of the house and the land owned by the deceased was in possession of the complainant and other brothers.
The appellant had pleaded at the trial that he deceased was murdered by W'azir P.W.5 in connivance with the complainant and other brothers and sister. In fact, such suggestions were put to each of the three eye-witnesses.
The whole case is full of doubts and improbabilities. It appears highly unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellant on such evidence, on a capital charge. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the appellant is acquitted by way of grant of benefit of doubt. She shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case.