JUDGMENT S.M. ZUBAIR, J.- Khadim Hussain appellant herein was tried under section 302 PPC for the murder of Mst. Salma, were of Muhammad Ali complainant P.W.5, The learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 19-1-1989, convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to imprisonment for life plus fine of Rs. 10,000/-, or in default R.I. For two years. The appellant was further directed to pay Rs.
25,000/- as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased, failing which to undergo S.I. For six months.
2. The prosecution version, as disclosed in the statement Ex.PB of Muhammad Ali P.W.5, which was recorded by Nazir Hussain S.L (PW.10) at Balkar Mandi at 1.30 p.m. On 7-9-1987, and formed the basis of formal FIR Ex.PB/1 recorded by Mukhtar Ali ASI (PW.8) at Police Station Nawan kot, is that on the fateful day at Dopehrwela, Muhammad Ali complainant (PW-5) and Muhammad Ali Driver (PW.6), were talking with each other in the street outside the house of the complainant while sitting on a charpai, when the appellant, who is Khalazad of Mst. Salma deceased, entered his house. After some time, the complainant heard outcries of his were to save her. The complainant and Muhammad Ali P.W. 6 entered the house and saw that the appellant had fallen the deceased on the ground and was butchering her with chhuri. Within the view of the witnesses, the appellant caused several blows on the chest, belly, flank, and her both arms. The witnesses tried to rescue the deceased, but the appellant threatened them with dire consequences and decamped from the spot with the weapon of offence. Mst. Salma breathed her last at the spot.
As for the motive, it is alleged, that about one month prior to the occurrence, the appellant abducted the deceased, but she was restored to the complainant due to the intervention of the brotherhood. On the day of occurrence, the appellant again came to abduct her, but the deceased refused to accompany him, whereupon, the appellant murdered her.
3. Nazir Hussain S.I. (PW.1), after recording the statement (Ex.PB) of Muhammad Ali P.W.5, sent the same to Police Station Nawan Kot and himself proceeded to the spot. He prepared the injury statement Ex.PF and inquest report Ex.PG and sent dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination under the escort of Sultan Ahmad and Muhammad Rafique constables. He inspected the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PH. He took into possession blood-stained earth from the spot vide memo. Ex.PC. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 9-9- 1987, the constables produced the last worn clothes of the deceased, which were taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PD. He got prepared site plan Ex.PE and PE/1 by Hamid-ud-Din Chishti Draftsman P.W.9. On 10-9-1987, he arrested the appellant, who got recovered chhuri P.1 from near Bund Road, Lahore which was taken into possession vide memo. Ex.PA.
4. Dr. Saleh Yousaf (PW.11) conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst.
Salma on 8-9-1987, and found as many as sixteen injuries thereon. The doctor opined that the injuries were ante mortem caused by the sharp edged and pointed weapon. Death was due to injury Nos. 1,2 and 6 (reproduced below) which were individually and all the injuries were collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature:-
1. Cut throat wound, 15-x5 cm, horizontally placed on the front of neck in the upper part, above the thyroid cartilage, 6 cm below right ear, 4 c.m. Below chin, 5 cm below left ear, with multiple deeper cuts in the depth of the wound extending to the depth of vertebral column and all structures of front and sides of meek cleanly severed to this depth.
2. Two confluent stab wounds horizontally placed in a total area 4x1.5 cm, on the left breast, 12 c.m from midline and 14 c.m. Below shoulder.
Vertically placed stab on the back of left chest, 4x1.5 c.m. Seize, 8.5 thencefrom midline and at the level of umbilicus."
5. The appellant in his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C, denied the prosecution allegations, professed innocence and produced no evidence in defence.
6. The learned trial Judge believing the prosecution evidence; convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended: that it was an unwitnessed crime in which the complainant who was the real husband of the deceased has been made to depose falsely in the Court by pretending that he was present at the scene; that the only independent eye- witness Muhammad Ali P.W. 6 has not supported the prosecution case and there is strong reason to believe that the complainant himself murdered his were for the reason as disclosed in the evidence that he wanted to mary his sister-in-law Mst. Khurshid Bibi; that the ocular evidence is against the medical evidence and the independent recovery witness Amjad Husain P.W. 7 was declared hostile; hence the recovery has not been proved as required under the law; that the recovery of blood-stained chhuri P.1 was witnessed by the police officer and other witnesses who were not the residents of the locality; hence this recovery is against the provisions of section 103 Cr.P.C, and cannot be used as corroborative piece of evidence against the appellant.
8. The learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment under appeal.
9. I have the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the entire evidence with their able assistance.
Admittedly, it is a case of sole accused and the occurrence took place at day time. The appellant being the brother-in-law of the complainant was very well known to him. There is no background of enmity between the complainant and the appellant. It is the quality of evidence and not quantity of evidence, which persuades a Court of law to convict or acquit an accused person. There is no reason to disbelieve the ocular version furnished by Muhammad Ali. P.W.5, whose evidence is straightforward, confidence inspiring and is getting support from the medical evidence as well as from the recovery of blood-stained chhuri P.1 at the instance of the appellant and the report of the Serologist Ex.PL/which is positive. The complainant gave very reasonable and plausible explanation for his presence at the scene. The complainant Muhammad Ali P.W.5 and Muhammad Ali P.W.6, were helper and driver, respectively, of a bus. Both were on leave on the day of occurrence, as the bus was in the workshop, because it was to be got painted. The FIR was lodged promptly in which the name of the appellant was mentioned. As there was no possibility of false implication of the appellant in view of inter se relationship of the complainant and the appellant; hence the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
10. The defence plea taken by the appellant does not advance the case of the appellant. The mere assertion of the appellant that the complainant after getting rid of his first were wanted to mary Mst. Khurshid Bibi is based on no evidence. On the contrary, there is evidence to the effect that the appellant first abducted the deceased, i.e. The were of the complainant due to the intervention of the brotherhood. He again wanted to abduct the deceased for immoral purposes, when she refused to do so, the appellant opened attack on her and butchered her brutally. The contention of the learned counsel that it looks strange that two persons did not apprehend the appellant who was only armed with a chhuri, if of no avail, because a person/witness cannot be discredited for his cowardice. The said two witnesses may not be courageous enough to apprehend the appellant, who was armed with a chhuri and was making murderous assault on the were of the complainant.
This Court has observed in many cases that independent witnesses, though available, do not normally come forward to perform their civic obligations due to the reprisal of relatives of the culprits, the rude conduct of the police during the investigation as well as on account of uncalled for delay in the disposal of the cases by the Courts. No hard and fast rule can be laid down with respect to the quality of an independent witness but the Court has to see whether a witness who had appeared in a case in a position to witness the crime and was giving a narration which is true or not, keeping in view the salutary principle of administration of criminal justice.
11. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt; hence I find no merits in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.
Before parting with this judgment, I may observe that the appellant murdered a married woman brutally for the reason that she refused to accompany him for immoral purposes, but keeping in view that the occurrence took place in the year 1987 and since then the appellant is in jail, I refrain to issue suo motu to him for enhancement of sentence.