' Anwar Maseeh son of Nawab alias Habib aged 27 years was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha for the murder of Mst. Mumtaz Bibi who vide his impugned judgment dated 14-5- 1986 had convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo under section 302, P.P.C. Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs, 3,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for two years' R.I.
2. The prosecution case in brief as unfolded in F.I.R Exh. P.D. Recorded by P.W.6. S.H.O. Rehmat Khan on the statement of P.W.4. Khurshid Maseeh Elder father of the deceased is to the effect that he was a resident of Chak No,98/N.B. About three years earlier to the present occurrence, he had married his deceased daughter Mst. Mumtaz Bibi with appellant and during the wedlock a child Asif Akhtar was born. The appellant was a laborer at Rawalpindi and had come to his house about few days earlier to the present occurrence and on the day of occurrence i,e, 18-10-1985 he had to return to Rawalpindi to say him good-bye the appellant along with Javed Maseeh P.W.3 reached the house of appellant and after some time the appellant along with P.Ws. Proceeded to the house of Mst. Bashiran mother of the appellant. At about 2-00 p.m. They heard commotion from the house of the appellant and the complainant along with P.W.3 reached the spot and witnessed the appellant giving Danda blows to Mst. Mumtaz Bibi who after receiving injuries fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by the complainant P.W.4, Javed Maseeh P.W.3 and Siddique Maseeh (P.W. Given up). The appellant suspected that the deceased used to visit the house of the complainant for immoral purposes. The complainant had also previously restrained the deceased not to visit the house of the complainant and due to said grievance he had intentionally murdered the deceased.
3. P.W.6 Rehmat Khan S.H.O. Investigating Officer after recording formal F.I.R. Exh. P.D. Reached the spot and prepared injury statement Exh.P.E, inquest report Exh. P.F. And despatched the dead body to the mortuary. He arrested the accused at the spot and thereafter collected the blood-stained earth from the spot and Sota Exh. P.3. Vide memos Exh. P.C. He recorded the statement of P.Ws. And after completion of Investigation challaned the accused. Prosecution examined seven P.Ws. In all to substantiate its case. The ocular account has been furnished by the statement of P.W.3 and P.W.4 Javed Maseeh and Khurshid Maseeh the complainant. P.W.4 narrated the facts mentioned by him in F.I.R. Exh. P.D. P.W.3 Javed Maseeh corroborated the statement of P.W.4. They stated that they had witnessed the appellants giving Danda blows to the deceased. They also stated about the motive behind the present occurrence. The recovery aspect of the case .Was stated by P. W. 3 Javed Maseeh who had witnessed the recovery of Exh. P.3 from the spot by P.W. 6 vide memo Exh. P.C. Attested by him.
4. P.W. 7 Dr. Muhammad Yousaf on 19-10-1985 had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and had found the following injuries:-
(i) A lacerated wound 1.2 inch x 1/2" x bone deep on the front of right side of skull.
(ii) An abraded contused area mid forehead 2.5" x 1/2".
(iii) Lacerated wound 1" x 3/4" skin (dropped off) on nose.
(iv) An abraded area of 2" x 1/2" on the right side of neck.
(v) An abraded area 3/4" x 1/4" below the injury No,4, 1" apart.
(vi) Chest: 5 inches abraded area on the right outer aspect near the interior axillary line.
(vii) A contusion 4" x 2" on the outer aspect of left hip.
(viii) Two abraded contused areas on the back of left chest, 1/2" x 1/2" and 1/4" x 1/4".
(ix) Right Arm. An abraded contused area on the back of right forearm 4-1/2" x 1/2".
(x) An abraded contused area on the back of right elbow joint 1-1/2" x 3/4".
(xi) Left Arm. An abraded contused area on the outer side of left upper ar. 4-1/2" x 3/4".
(xii) A contused abraded area on the back of left forearm 3" x 1/2".
(xiii) A contused wound on the left hand, palmer aspect 1" x 1/2" skin chopped off below the base of little finger.
(xiv) Right Leg. Multiple abraded area on the outer right leg.
(xv) A contusion mark 7" x 4-1/2" on the back and outer aspect of right buttock and thigh.
(xvi) Multiple abraded area on the front of left leg.
Muscles. Bones. Joints: (xviii) Right elbow joint was dislocated.
Granium and Spinal Cord.
(xviii) There was sub-scalp Haemorrhage present at the site of injury No,1.
' Membranes of Brain was lacerated, congested and sub-dural haemorrhage was present under injury No,1. Thorax. Left heart was empty. Rest all organs were healthy.
' Abdomen. Stomach contained semi-digested food, small intestines contained faucal matter and air. Bladder was empty. All organs of abdomen were healthy.
' He found that the death probably occurred due to concussion and shock caused by intra-cranial haemorrhage due to injury No,1, which was sufficient in the course of death.
5. The appellant when examined under section 342, Cr.P.0 denied the prosecution evidence against him and as well as the recovery of blood-stained Danda Exh. P.3 from the spot by the Police. He has further stated that the deceased was not of good character and she had been done to death by any concerned person aggrieved of any sufficient provocation after witnessing her in objectionable condition. He neither made statement in defence nor produced defence evidence.
6. The learned Trial Court after evaluating evidence on record had convicted and sentenced the appellant. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that it was a blind murder and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case which was registered after the preliminary inquiry and consultations. F.I.R. Exh. P.D contains the name of the appellant, the witnesses, weapon carried by appellant as well as the manner in which the occurrence took place all are given therein.
P.W.4 complainant during cross-examination has stated that he reached the police station where Moharrir and Thanedar asked him to go to the spot and they were coming after him. The complainant reached the spot where police arrived and he narrated the whole incident to the Police Officer, who recorded the statement at the spot. Three respectable persons whose names he did not know also reached the spot. They also talked something to the Police Officer. Barkat Hussain F.C. (P.W.2) stated that he accompanied P.W.6 Rehmat Khan S.H.O. To the spot where the complainant and his witnesses met them and P.W.6 recorded the statement of complainant and other witnesses. P.W.6 had stated otherwise that he recorded formal F.I.R. At Police Station. Inquest report Exh.P.F. Does not contain that the clothes of the deceased were blood-stained whereas P.W.2 had produced to P.W.6 bloodstained clothes of the deceased handed over to him by the Doctor.
The place of occurrence is surrounded by the houses. P.W.3 and P.W.4 were attracted to the spot after hearing commotion from the house of the appellant. They neither interfered nor rescued the deceased and none of the residents of the locality reached the spot. No person from the vicinity has been produced to corroborate the statement of P.W.3 and P.W.4.
8. P.W.6 had secured Danda Exh.P.3 from .The spot but he had not mentioned in memo. Exh.PC that the same was blood-stained. The report of the Chemical Examiner and that of Serologist Exh.PH and Exh.PJ respectively are positive in respect of the blood-stained earth and Danda Exh.P.3. The appellant is alleged to have caused injuries with Danda Exh.P.3 to the deceased which is not an awful weapon. P.W.3 and P.W.4 had neither tried to intervene nor rescued the deceased. The appellant had stated under section 342, Cr.P.C. Before the Trial Court that some concerned persons had killed the deceased after witnessing her in objectionable condition under grave and sudden provocation.
9. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are not residents of the locality. No doubt P.W.4 is father of the deceased but P.W.3 is neither related to the deceased nor to the appellant and he had no occasion to visit the place of occurrence at the relevant time. They had not been able to give the probable cause of their being present at the relevant time. The plea raised by the appellant is neither spelt out from the circumstances appearing in the present case nor from the evidence on record. There is no probability of the existence of the plea raised by the appellant. The motive behind the occurrence was disbelieved by the trial Court. The ocular account furnished on record by statement of P.W.3 and P.W.4 has not been corroborated by any other eye-witnesses from the vicinity and the Court is left with no option except to draw its own conclusion. P.W.4 complainant in F.I.R. Exh.PD had specifically stated that the appellant restrained the deceased from visiting the house of her father (P.W.4) as he suspected that the deceased used to visit the house of her father for immoral purposes. The genesis of the occurrence is shrouded in mystery and what happened immediately prior to the occurrence is not known. Pursuant to the above discussion, I am of the view that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing its case against appellant under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. The appellant is in Jail since 18-10-1985 and I am of the view that the period already undergone by him shall meet the ends of justice. Sentence of fine is maintained and in default thereof he shall suffer one year R.I. . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.