SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J.-Muhammad Ramzan aged 50 years was tried by the Sessions Judge, Khushab, for having murdered his wife Mst. Allah Wasai during the night between 23rd and 24th of July, 1988, in his house in village Nurpur, at a distance of 2 furlongs from Police Station Nurpur, Distt. Khushab.
Vide judgment dated 24-7-89, he was convicted under Section 302 PPC and sentenced to death plus to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- in default whereof to undergo R.I. For 1-1/2 years.
2. The appeal filed by the convict and the reference made by learned trial Judge are being disposed of together.
3. F.I.R. Ex. PE was recorded by Kalab-i-Abbas, S.I. (P.W.10) on 24-7- 88 at 3-30 p.m. On the statement of Gul Nawaz (PW8).
According to F.I.R. Mst. Allah Wasai and Mst. Lalo sisters of the complainant were married to Muhammad Ramzan (appellant) and Khamisa (PW9), residents of Nurpur. Muhammad Ramzan often used to quarrel with Mst. Allah Wasai. The complainant had come to the house of Khamisa, alongwith Muhammad Ramzan son of Haji (given up PW) in that connection. They had slept in the house of Khamisa. The house of the appellant was adjacent to the house of Khamisa. At midnight the complainant and the P.Ws, heard noise of Muhammad Ramzan (appellant) and Mst. Allah Wasai. They ran to the house of the appellant. A lantern was burning in the courtyard. They saw Muhammad Ramzan holding a hatchet and abusing Mst. Allah Wasai. On seeing the witnesses he gave two hatchet blows to the deceased on the left side of head and left side of neck, saying that he will not spare her alive. He also gave a lalkara to the P.Ws, that if anyone of them dared intervene, he will meet the same fate. The P.Ws, did not dare intervene. The appellant ran away alongwith the hatchet. Thereafter many persons reached the spot. Mst. Allah Wasai died at the spot.
4. Motive for the occurrence was suspicion of Muhammad Ramzan appellant about bad character of Mst. Allah Wasai.
5. Kalab-i-Abbas, S.I. After recording the F.I.R, reached the spot. He despatched the dead body for post-mortem after preparing injury statement Ex. PN and inquest report Ex. PG. Thereafter he collected blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo Ex. PC.
The appellant was arrested by the S.I. On 26-7-88 on being produced before him, by one Maqbul Shah. Hatchet P.3 got recovered by the appellant on the same day was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PF. The challan was submitted to Court after completion of necessary investigation.
6. Statements of ten P.Ws, were recorded at the trial.
Dr. Rabnawaz who had performed autopsy, appeared as PW7. He had noted following injuries on the body of the deceased:-
1. An incised wound 8 cm x 3-1/2 cm on parietal region above the ear. The bone parieto temporal was fractured. The brain matter was available.
2. An incised wound 4 cm x 2 cm on the left side of neck at the base, above the left clavical underlying and blood vessels were cut.
3. An incised wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm below the left clavical on the mid clavical line.
Muscles underlying injury No. 1 were cut. Left temporal bone was fractured. Left meninges and left temporal region was also cut. Muscles and external carotid artery were severed by injury No. 2.
Uterous was found containing 9-10 weeks old fetus.
Death was opined to have occurred due to bleeding and shock resulting from injury to the brain.
Both the injuries were opined to be fatal to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
During cross-examination he stated that the injuries could be caused to the victim in lying position.
7. Ocular account was deposed to by Gul Nawaz PW8 and Khamisa PW9.
Gul Nawaz repeated the fact given by him in the FIR. During cross- examination he admitted that Allah Ditta PW was also his brother-in-law and Ramzan was son of his maternal uncle. He stated that he and Ramzan PW had straight gone to the house of Khamisa PW and stayed there.
According to him Mst. Allah Wasai had come to see them there. He stated that the houses of Khamisa PW and Muhammad Ramzan (appellant) were adjacent. He gave out that he had assured the appellant that Mst. Allah Wasai was of a good character and apparently he seemed to be satisfied, but inwardly continued to nourish doubts. He admitted that 14-years old daughter of the appellant had been betrothed to his son willingly by the deceased and the appellant and the engagement continued. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the occurrence and had been called from his village after the murder and that he had lodged report against the appellant on account of suspicion.
8. Khamisa PW9 while corroborating the statement made by PW8 also claimed to have witnessed the recovery of bloodstained hatched P.3 at the instance of appellant. He admitted his relationship with the deceased as well as with the P.Ws During cross-examination he stated that except the witnesses, none else had witnessed the occurrence. He gave out that the deceased was serving as a Dai in a dispensary which was at a distance of 8 miles from her house. Like PW8 he also denied that he had not witnessed the occurrence and had made a false statement. He denied the suggestion that no recovery had been effected at the pointing out of the appellant.
Both the witnesses denied the suggestion that Mst. Allah Wasai had earned displeasure of some persons for having caused miscarriages and she might have been done to death by someone else.
9. Kalab-i-Abbas, SHO who had registered the case, had submitted the challan to Court after completion of investigation and had also taken into possession hatchet P.3 during investigation at the instance of the appellant, appeared as PW 10 and deposed those facts. During cross- examination he denied the suggestion that he had recorded the F.I.R, after spot inspection in the morning. According to him there was intervening wall between the houses of the deceased and Khamisa PW. He denied the suggestion that he had conducted the investigation in a dishonest manner and implicated the appellant at the instance of the complainant unjustifiably.
10. The appellant during his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C, denied the prosecution case as a whole and pleaded innocence. He stated that his wife had been murdered by some unknown culprit during his absence from the house. He declined to make statement on oath under section 340(2) Cr.P.C, and did not choose to adduce evidence in defence.
11. We have gone through the evidence with the assistance of learned counsel for the State and have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties.
The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that Gul Nawaz PW appears to have made a false statement as he could not have been at the spot for being a resident of a place which was 30 miles away from the place of occurrence, has not impressed us. He has given reasonable explanation for having been in the house of Khamisa PW since evening of the night during which the occurrence had taken place. Had he not been there, he could not have been available to the police for recording the FIR on his statement at 3-30 a.m., even if the occurrence had taken place right about 12 midnight, because he could not have been informed so swiftly at his house which was about 30 miles away, nor could he have reached the police station so quickly to lodge the report at 3-30 a.m.
The contention that Khamisa PW does not appear to have witnessed the occurrence, also has not impressed us. He was. Living in a adjacent house. On hearing any type of noise he would have naturally felt concerned and so would have quickly gone to the spot. The criticism by learned counsel for the appellant regarding the presence of these witnesses at the spot, in our view, was not well founded.
12. The relationship of the eye-witnesses with the deceased in this case is not a disqualification as it can be in ordinary cases, for the reason that the appellant was also related to them. The complainant who must have been aggrieved and anguished over the murder of his sister, must also have a great concern for the safety of the appellant. He was not only husband of his sister but had agreed to give the hand of his daughter to his (complainant's) son as well. The undertaking given in that regard, was so fast that it not only stood at the time of occurrence but remained intact even thereafter. He would obviously not have liked to become a party to have the appellant sent to gallows or get him punished by rigorous imprisonment, if he had not committed the murder. Similar was the position of PW9. Both the witnesses had no axe to grind against the appellant. Although doubts brewed in the mind of the appellant about chastity of the deceased yet the witnesses do not seem to have felt annoyed over that. In fact the complainant had assured the appellant that his sister (wife of the appellant- deceased) was a woman of chaste character.
Except such misgivings there was no other difference between the appellant and any of the eye- witnesses. The unbiased position of the eye-witnesses finds corroboration from the recovery/ of bloodstained hatchet at the instance of the appellant. The medical evidence in turn also lends support to the ocular account.
In the circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. However, we are not inclined to confirm the sentence of death awarded to the appellant, as it is prosecution's own case that the appellant had murdered his wife on account of her bad character.
In our view that is a sound mitigating circumstance in this case. The sentence of death is, therefore, altered to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine is however, maintained. He shall also be given benefit of the provisions of Section 382-B Cr.P.C.