Riaz Ahmad has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Lyallpur, under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of his own wife, Mst. Ghulam Fatima, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs. 500 or in default in payment thereof to further R. I. For one year. Its 300 out of the fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid to the heirs of the deceased wife.
2. There is no eye-witness to the murder. The story begins with an extra judicial confession made by the appellant before Muhammad Azam. Allah Ditta P. Ws. And others, three days after the occurrence. The appel--lant belonged to Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat, where he had a house and a shop, but as he had incurred loans, he sold the house and the shop and cleared the debt. He, thereafter, came to Lyallpur and rented a house from Abdul Rashid P. W. In street No. 8, Mohalla Chibban, and took up his residence there alongwith his wife Mst. Ghulam Fatima deceased and daughter, Mst. Kausar Sultana, about 8/9 months before the occurrence. Mst. Kausar Sultana joined nursing classes in Nishtar Medical College, Multan. The appellant and his wife, alone, lived in the house. On 6-3-1973, at 12 noon, Muhammad Azam was sitting with Allah Ditta and others in his baithak when the appellant turned up and took his seat on the ground. Muhammad Azam invited him to sit on the cot but he declined, saying that he had committed such an offence as would not befit him to sit on a cot. He, thereupon, disclosed that he had murdered by strangulation his wife Mst. Ghulam Fatima three days before at 9 p.m. He further told them that the deceased had been of bad character and had also put his only daughter on the same path. He disclosed that after the murder he went to Multan to kill his daughter too, but not succeeding in that, had returned.
Muhammad Azam being convinced of the truth of disclosure made by the appellant, produced him before the Civil Lines Police Station. Lyallpur, where he also lodged report at 2 p.m. On interrogation the appellant revealed that the dead body was lying in his house, which was locked from outside. He produced its key (Exh.P.6). The police then brought him to the spot, where, on opening the lock (Exh. P. 16) with the key (Exh. P. 6), the police found the dead body lying on a cot in the house. At the instance of the appellant, a handkerchief (Exh. P. 11), with which the appellant had strangulated the deceased, was also secured, The appellant produced letters (Exh. P./1-5) written by Mst. Kausar Sultana of which Exh. P.1, which eras a love letter, was addressed to her cousin, Arshad Parvez, while the remaining four had been addressed to her mother the deceased.
3. The post-mortem examination held at 6 p .m. The same day confirmed that the death had been caused due to asphyxia and possibly by strangulation. There were two contusion marks, one on the front right side and the other on the front left side of the neck. In the opinion of the doctor the death had occurred within about half an hour of the receipt of the injuries, and four days before the post- mortem examination.
4. The factum of the extra judicial confession was proved by Muhammad Azam (P. W. 8) and Allah Ditta (P. W. 9). Mst. Kausar Sultana (P. W. 7) admitted that she was the only child of her parents and that the letters (Exh. P./1-5) had been written by her. She, however, denied that her father used to object to her writing love letters to Arshad Parvez. The recoveries were proved by Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 6) as well as by Muhammad Azam and Allah Ditta P. Ws. Abdul Rashid (P. W. 5) testified that the house in which the occurrence had taken place belonged to him and had been taken on rent by the appellant.
5. In his lengthily examination under section 342, Cr. P. C. The appellant denied the allegations. He retracted from his extra judicial confession and denied that he had been suspecting his wife of immorality or that she had been trying to put her daughter, Mst. Kausar Sultana, on immoral path.
He also denied the recoveries as well as ownership of the key (Exh. P. 6), the letters (Exh. P./1-5) and the handkerchief (Exh. P.11). He, however, produced no evidence in defence. The line taken in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses was that some unknown person had murdered the deceased and that when the appellant came to know of it he went to Muhammad Azam and others to seek their help, but, instead, they falsely implicated him in the murder.
6. In his memorandum of appeal the appellant has taken the position that he had to sell away his property and migrate from Mandi Bahauddin on account of his suspicion of the deceased being in intimacy with a person who was her near relative and who used to visit her. He has added that even after his migration, that relation of the deceased began to visit her at Lyallpur also at which he admonished her but, in the meantime, he learnt that the deceased was putting his daughter also on wrong path. He had come across a letter written by his daughter which contained improper expressions which could not be tolerated by a father. The appellant rebuked the deceased, but on the same day, her said relation also arrived, which let to a quarrel in which that relation and the deceased inflicted injuries on the appellant who left the house in utter frustration.
He his further stated in the memorandum of appeal, that when he returned to his house the next day he found the deceased lying dead in the room, that lie then locked the house from outside and came to the baithak of Muhammad Azam P. W. For help, but they got him involved in the case. It is strange that in the memorandum of appeal he has also urged that he had no such quarrel with the deceased as could lead him to murder her. The stand now taken by the appellant, in his memorandum of appeal contains many facts which he had not' given in his statement recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. And which, in fact, fall in line with the prosecution case at least in regard to the motive.
7. The crucial point for examination is whether the extra judicial con--fession had been voluntary and true. Muhammad Azam and Allah Ditta P. Ws. Who are the witnesses to that confession, are, from all appearance independent persons, the former being Sarbrah Lambardar and the latter a Zamindar. They both live in the same mohalla as that of the appellant. There is no material to suggest that the appellant had been coerced or induced to make that statement. Then the facts brought out in the extra-- judicial confession find corroboration in material circumstance. In the firs instance is the fact that only the appellant and the deceased lived in the house in which the dead body was discovered. It is not the appellant's case that he had been out of town during the days the occurrence took place. The door of the house was locked and the key of that lock had been produced by the appellant. The appellant alone, being the inmate of the house had the knowledge of the presence of the dead body but he suppressed the information for three days. Then is the production by him of the love letter (Exh. P. 1) written by his daughter to Arshad Parvez. His daughter; Mst. Kausar Sultana, duly testified that the letter had been written by her. The handkerchief (Exh. 11) with which the deceased had been strangulate was also recovered from inside the house. The recovery witnesses, namely Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 6), Muhammad Azam (P. W. 8) and Allah Ditta (P. W. 9) are reliable witnesses. Ghulam Muhammad had his house only about 1-- killas from that of the appellant. The medical evidence confirms the death by strangulation. In these circumstances the extra-judicial confession is found to be both voluntary and true and as such, even though retracted, is relevant.
8. The question, however, arises whether in these circumstances the appellant could be held guilty of murder? The occurrence itself is shrouded in mystery, but the fact that a love letter written by his daughter had fallen in the hands of the appellant, goes to show that he had some basis for suspecting his wife of putting his only daughter on wrong path. It is worth noting that even the letters (Exhs. P. 2-5) which were written to the deceased had been sent to a different address which means that the girl kept her communication even with her mother secret from her father, the appellant. It is possible that the appellant had, on the discovery of the letters, lost his self-control and believing that the deceased had played a collusive role, took her life. The learned trial Judge had observed:-- "However, one thing is clear that the deceased gave some type of provocation to the accused and on that account he did the act. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the accused might have shown resentment on the love letter written by his daughter to Arshad Parvez and the deceased might have defended her daughter. In our society writing of love letter by a daughter are not tolerable by a father."
If the observation is well based, which in the circumstances of the case it is, then the appellant must be held to have acted under grave and sudden provocation on seeing the letters. Mr. Nemat Khan learned counsel appear for the State, indeed urged, and I agree, that the case fell under section 304, Part I and not under section 302, P. P. C. He also prayed that an imprisonment of 7/10 years would be a sufficient punishment.
9. In the result, I alter the conviction of the appellant from section 302, to section 304, Part I, P. P. C.
And reduce his sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. Since the appellant had killed his own wife, do not consider it necessary to impose any fine or compensation under section 544-A, Cr. P. C. The sentence of fine imposed by the lower Court is, therefore, set aside. The appellant shall be informed through the jail authorities.