' SH. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11-6-1988 of the learned Judge, Punjab Special Court for Speedy Trials No,1, Lahore, whereby he convicted Abdul Majeed alias Jeeda and Muhammad Ashraf under section 302/34, P.P.C. for the murder of Mst.
Khalida Begum and sentenced them to suffer death and fine of Rs,15,000 each or in default to undergo two years' R.I. each. The fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased in accordance with their legal shares.
2. The occurrence took place on 17-9-1987 at 2-30 p.m. in the house of the deceased in the Main Bazar, Muslim Colony, Jeea Musa, P.S. Shandara, Lahore. Report Exh.PF was lodged by Waheed Ahmad Qureshi (P.W.8) on the same day at about 3-00 p.m. The formal F.I.R. Exh.PF/1 was recorded by Muhammad Yousuf S.I. (P.W.11).
3. The facts in brief are that the husband of Mst. Khalida Begum deceased died in the year 1984.
She had one daughter who was married in the year 1986. The deceased was living alone in Muslim Colony, Jia Musa. Waheed Ahmad Qureshi (P.W.8), brother of her late husband lived at a distance of about 600/700 feet from her.
' On 17-9-1987 at about 2-00/2-30 p.m. Waheed Ahmad Qureshi (P.W.8) and Muhammad Mumtaz (P.W.9) were passing in front of the house of the deceased. On hearing alarm they went inside and saw Abdul Majid alias Jeeda and Muhammad Ashraf appellants scaling over the northern wall of the house of the deceased. They entered the room and found Mst. Khalida Begum deceased lying dead in a pool of blood.
' Leaving Muhammad Mumtaz P.W. and his nephew Tariq Ahmad at the spot, Waheed Ahmad Qureshi P.W. left for Police Station Shandara and made statement in writing Exh.PF about the incident. Muhammad Yousuf S.I. (P.W.11) left for the spot, prepared the injury statement Exh.PM and inquest report Exh.PN in respect of the deceased and sent her dead body to the mortuary for post- mortem examination. He inspected the spot and collected blood with the help of cotton swabs, torn pocket of shirt P.8, Tawa P.9 and Bailna P.10 vide memo. Exh.PG. He preserved fingerprints appearing at different places which were later obtained/picked up by the Finger Print Expert on 20- 9-1987.
4. On the following day i.e. 18-9-1987, both the appellants were arrested by Muhammad Yousuf S.I. from an orchard situate in Shandara. Blood-stained shirt P.11 and Shalwar P.12 of Abdul Majid appellant, shirt P.13 and Shalwar P.14 of Muhammad Ashraf appellant were secured through memo.
Exh. PH, attested by Waheed Ahmad Qureshi P.W.8 and Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.9. On 23-9-1987, Abdul Majid led to the recovery of broken Chhuri P. 6 from his house which was made into a sealed parcel through memo. Exh. P.D. On 29-9-1987, Muhammad Ashraf led to the recovery of blood- stained Chhuri P.7 from his house from underneath a box which was also made into a sealed parcel through memo. Exh.PE, attested by Mubashir Ahmad P.W.7 and Muhammad Nawaz (not produced).
' The blood-stained clothes of the appellants and the Chhuris recovered at their instance were found to be stained with human blood by the Serologist vide his report Ex.PS. The front torn pocket of the shirt of Muhammad Ashraf appellant was also found to be stained with human blood. It was also found to match with shirt in respect of colour, shape, position, stitches and other technical details by the Forensic Science Laboratory vide report Exh.PK. Report Exh.PY of Finger Prints Bureau was also tendered. According to it fingerprints tallied with the right thumb-impression of Muhammad Ashraf appellant.
' After completing legal formalities, the police submitted the challan in the Court.
5. Dr. Muhammad Afzal (PW.2) conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Khalida Begum deceased on 17-9-1987 at 5-30 p.m. and found as many as 38 injuries on the dead body.
' All the injuries were ante-mortem. Ten of the injuries were caused by blunt weapon and the rest with sharp-edged weapon. Death was due to injuries Nos. 14, 15 and 31, reproduced below:---
(14) An incised wound, 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on left side of neck, 5 c.m. from midline and 3 c.m. below left angle of jaw.
(15) An incised wound, 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. on right side of neck, 7 c.m. from midline and 3 c.m. below right angle of jaw and a knife (Chhuri) was projecting out of the wound.
(31) An incised wound, 10 c.m. x 1 c.m. on scalp in midline, 7 c.m. above root of nose extending backwards.
6. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations. They disowned the recoveries and stated to have been involved on the ground of suspicion. They were asked if they would appear as their own witnesses in disproof of the prosecution allegations, but they declined to exercise their discretion in that behalf. Explaining the matching of his finger prints, Muhammad Ashraf appellant stated that he had remained in police custody from 18-9-1987 to 3- 10-1987 and that the police had fabricated the said piece of evidence and that he was not produced before any Magistrate for obtaining his finger prints.
7. Believing the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellants and awarded them the sentence as indicated above.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Waheed Ahmad Qureshi P.W.8, besides being brother-in-law of the deceased is a chance witness of the occurrence. Similar is the case of Malik Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.9, who is a chance witness as well as police tout. The occurrence had not taken place at 2-30 p.m.; rather it took place much earlier as observed by the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, that the injuries sustained by her were within fifteen hours duration. This report of the doctor also finds support from the evidence of Allah Ditta P.W.3, who deposed that he alongwith Muhammad Yousuf S.I. (P.W.11) left the police station at 1-00/1-30 p.m. for the spot which contradicts the position taken by Waheed Ahmad Qureshi P.W.8 while lodging the F.I.R.
' Learned counsel has also assailed the recoveries effected either from the spot or from the appellants, as the recovery witnesses are neither the witnesses of the locality nor they are independent witnesses.
' In the end, learned counsel vehemently contended, this gruesome murder could not be committed without there being any strong motive, as the appellants had no strong motive against the deceased, hence the superstructure of the prosecution case falls to the ground. It was further contended that in the given circumstances, it was not possible for Waheed Ahmad Qureshi P.W.8 and Malik Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.9 to see the appellants fleeing away from the scene immediately after the occurrence. This case entirely depends upon the circumstantial evidence, as neither Waheed Ahmad Qureshi P.W.8 nor Malik Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.9 had witnessed the crime with their own eyes and the evidence so collected is not coming from an unimpeachable source, so the recoveries should not be believed in this case. The articles so recovered remained with the police for a considerable time which is against the provisions of the Police Rules as well as the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the presence of these infirmities, the case of the prosecution is not free from doubt, so the appellants richly deserve the benefit of doubt, which may be extended to them.
9. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned judgment for the reasons mentioned in detail in the judgment itself.
10. We have carefully examined the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the recored minutely with their able assistance.
' Admittedly, there is no background of enmity between Waheed Ahmad Qureshi P.W.8 and Malik Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.9 with the appellants and the report in this case was lodged promptly which excludes the possibility of manipulation, deliberation or false implication. Waheed Ahmad Qureshi P.W.8, no doubt, is the brother-in-law of the deceased, but he being a natural witness of the occurrence has given very straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence in the Court as well as the lodging of prompt F.I.R shows that he had no intention to fabricate the evidence favourable to the prosecution. The F.I.R. lodged by him, discloses that he saw both the appellants scaling over the wall of the house when he alongwith Malik Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.9 entered the house after hearing the shrieks. As the occurrence took place in the broad daylight and the appellants were known to both the witnesses, being their Mohallandars, so it is not a case of mistaken identity of the appellants. Their names were mentioned in the F.1.R. which was lodged without loss of any time.
11. It is correct that this case hinges upon the circumstantial evidence but it may be observed that men may tell lie, but the circumstances do not. The only qualification for the appreciation of circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances should be incompatible with the innocence of the accused persons. Applying the aforesaid principle of law to the facts of the case, we find that number of injuries sustained by the deceased corroborates the prosecution version that it was not the act of one individual accused, rather more than one person took part in the crime, as the deceased received on her person approximately 38 injuries, out of which three injuries (reproduced above) were fatal individually as well as collectively, caused by sharp-edged weapon. The recovery of front torn pocket of the shirt from the spot on the day of occurrence by the investigating officer as is apparent from Exh. DC which matched with the shirt removed from the person of Muhammad Ashraf appellant, as both were found stained with human blood, is a very strong circumstantial evidence so far as the guilt of the appellants is concerned. The recovery of blood-stained Chhuris at the instance of the appellants, which were found stained with human blood and witnessed by Waheed Ahmad Qureshi P.W.8 and Malik Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.9 lends credence to the prosecution story and corroborates the version given by these two witnesses about the occurrence. The recovery of broken piece of Chhuri P.6 at the instance of Abdul Majid alias Jeeda appellant on 23-9-1987, which matched with the blade recovered from the dead body of the deceased by the doctor on 17-9-1987 is a strong piece of evidence implicating this appellant with the crime and we find no justification to disbelieve the evidence of Mubashir Ahmad P.W.7 and Muhammad Yousuf S.1. P.W.11, the independent recovery witnesses of Chhuri P.6. They had no ostensible motive to falsely involve the appellants in this case. The learned trial Judge rightly observed that this evidence cannot be fabricated by the prosecution, just to build up a false case against the appellants, because the broken blade of Chhuri recovered from the dead body of the deceased could not be artificially made to match with the broken handle of the Chhuri recovered from Abdul Majid appellant. Muhammad Ashraf appellant's finger prints matched with the finger- prints taken from the scene, which connects him with the crime and these finger-prints were taken in the presence of Lal Din Magistrate P.W.10. We find no legal justification to discard these pieces of circumstantial evidence, which are coming from unimpeachable source.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants tried to build up the defence in this case, that the appellants, though arrested on the next day, were not found injured which shows that they did not take part in the crime. This plea, per se, is not sufficient to discard the direct and circumstantial evidence, referred to above, because the appellants may cause injuries to the deceased without suffering injuries from those weapons either themselves or at the instance of the deceased lady who struggled a lot before succumbing to the injuries received by her in the transaction.
' There is no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that such gruesome murder cannot be committed without there being strong motive. There are numerous instances in which motiveless crime is committed by the accused. Motive is a state of mind of a criminal.
Sometimes the prosecution may not be in a position to give that state of mind, but suffice it to say that the circumstantial evidence coupled with the evidence of Waheed Ahmad Qureshi P.W.8 and Malik Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.9, proves the case against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. The nature and manner of injuries sustained by the deceased, leave no manner of doubt that the assailants committed this crime in ghastly and gruesome manner and they are not entitled to any leniency in the imposition of sentence. We find no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed.