' Gbulam Rasool son of Balaqi, aged 25 years, has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated the 30th of September, 1974, of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, as follows : he has been convicted under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of Atst. Rahia, khala of his wife Mst.
Hamida (P. W. 3) and was sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine of Rs, 1000 or in default to undergo six months' R. I. He was also convicted under section 307, P. P. C. For murderous assault on Mst. Harridan (P. W. 3) his wife and was sentenced to 10 years' R. I. Plus fine of Rs, 500 or in default to undergo six months' R. I. He was likewise convicted under section 452, P. P. C. For trespassing into the house of the complainant party and was sentenced to seven years' R. I. Plus fine of Rs, 500 or in default to undergo six months' R.
1. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. Fine if realized was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased and Mst. Hamidan P. W. Respectively. Co-accused Nazir his brother was acquitted. The appeal of the convict is before me which is being disposed of by this judgment.
2. The occurrence took place on the 3rd of August, 1972, at 9-00 a. m. In village lihattike, at a distance of four furlong from Police Station Sader Wazirabad. F. I. R. (Exb. P. C.) was lodged by Muhammad Yaqub P. W. 10) son-in-law of the deceased at 10-30 a. m. On the same cagy at the police station and it was recorded by Faqir Hussain A. S. I. (P. W. 15).
3. The motive for crime as set up by the prosecution is that the appellant had strained relations with his wife Mst. Hamida P. W. Whom he used to beat. 10/12 days before the occurrence she quarrelled with the appellant and after leaving him. Started residing in the house of her parents along with the deceased her khala. It is stated that the deceased told the appellant that Mst.
Hamida P. W. Would not be sent back to him until he mended his ways. The appellant, therefore, thought that it was the deceased who would not let Mst. Hamida P. W. Come, back to him. 2/3 days prior to the present occurrence the appellant sent a message to them that Mst. Hamida P. W.
Should return to his house otherwise he would murder both the women. This message was ignored.
It is stated that for this reason the appellant attacked and murdered Mst. Rabia and made a murderous assault on his wife Mst. Hamida P. W. By trespassing into the house of her parents where she resided,
4. The prosecution has produced four eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Mst. Hamida (P. W.
3) injured wife of the appellant, Muhammad Yaqub (P. W. 10) son-in-law of the deceased, Muhammad Yousaf (P. W. 9) and Sardar (P. W. 11). Salim and Muhammad Hussain were mentioned as eye-witnesses in the F. I. R but Salim was given up as having been won over and Muhammad Hussain was not produced, Mst. Rasulan was not mentioned as an eye-witness in the F. I. R. But subsequently mentioned as such by Muhammad Yaqub P. W. In his statement. She was likewise given up as having been won over. It may be pointed out at this stage that Muhammad Yousaf and Sardar P. Ws. Are unconnected and independent witnesses. They along with Muhammad Yaqub P.
W. Had apprehended the appellant on the spot after the commission of crime along with blood- stained chhura as well as blood-stained clothes of the appellant and they took him to the police station and handed him over to the police where he was formally arrested. Mst, Hamida P. W. Was declared hostile at the trial stage and her statement made before the committing Magistrate was transferred to the Sessions file which has been relied upon by the trial Judge. All the eye-witnesses in the present case have been relied upon by the trial Court.
5. The appellant was arrested on the same day. i. e., 3rd of August, 1g72, when he was produced by the P Ws. At the police station. He was arrested by Jafar Hussain A. S.
1. P. W. Blood-stained chhura P. 1 was snatched from his hand and taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P. A. Dated the 3rd of August, 1972. The attesting witnesses are Muhammad Yousaf (P.
W. 9), Muhammad Yaqub (P. W. 10), Muhammad Hussain (not produced) and Jafar Hussain A. S.
1. (P. W. 15) blood-stained clothes, namely, shirt P. 2, shalwar P. 3 worn by the appellant at the time of his arrest were got removed and taken bite, possession vide memo. Exh. P. B., dated the 3rd of August, 1972. The attesting witnesses are Muhammad Yousaf (P. W. 9), Muhammad Yaqub (P. W. 10) and Jafar Hussain A. S. I. (P. W. 15). According to the report of the Serologist (Exh. P. V.) the aforementioned articles were found to be stained with human blood.
6. The case of the defence is of lone denial. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court stated that Muhammad Yaqub P. W. Had an evil eye on his wife Mn.Hamida P, W. And that he was an obstacle in her being returned to him although the deceased wanted her to go to the appellant.
He further stated that this enraged Muhammad Yaqub P. W. Who murdered the deceased and also injured Mst. Hamida P. W. He also stated that he tried to catch hold of Muhammad Yaqub P. W. But he likewise injured the appellant. According to the appellant chhura P. Belonged to Muhammad Yaqub P. W. He stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case by Muhammad Yaqub P. W.
In collusion with the police. He produced no defence.
' It may be pointed out at this stage that the appellant was injured at the time of his arrest and he was alto medically examine&
7. In the F. I. R. The occurrence is reported to have taken place in the following manner. On the fateful day Muhammad Yaqub P. W. Along with Sardar (P. W. 11) was standing at the shop of Saleem in order to purchase meat. At the same time the deceased was returning from Thatha Faqirullah after giving meals to her son. The appellant suddenly appeared arnica with a chhura and joined the deceased at a distance of 4/5 karams tram the shop of Saleem and started giving her blows with the chhura. Muhammad Yaqub and Sardar P. Ws. Raised alarm but since they were empty- handed they could not stop the appellant who continued giving chhura blows to the deceased. The shoes and the dapatta which the deceased was wearing fell down and in order to save her life she took a few steps to reach near the shop of Saleem. At this stage the P. Ws. Attempted to stop the appellant but he threatened to attack them also and, therefore, they held back. Thus, near the shop of Saleem, the appellant gave further chhura blows to the deceased who fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, the appellant went towards the house of Msr. Hamida P. W. Brandishing his chhura in the air. The P. Ws. Chased him while running after him. At that time, Mst. Hamida P. W. Was present in her house and was lying down in order to take rest under the shadow of the trees in the courtyard of the house which had no door. The appellant started causing injuries to her with the chhura by successive blows. She received many injuries on her person and by the time the P. Ws.
Came to her rescue, she had fallen unconscious. According to Muhammad Yaqub P. W. It appeared that, in this drawa the brother of the appellant, namely, Nadir (acquitted co-accused) had also accompanied him and it had been enacted in connivance and conspiracy with him.
When the appellant had completed his job and was coming out, he was apprehended on the spot by Muhammad Yaqub P. W. With the assistance of Sardar P. W. And Saleem. They held him in a japha and also snatched blood-stained chhura from his hand. Thereafter he was taken to the Police Station and produced before the Police. It was further stated by Muhammad Yaqub P. W.
That Muhammad Yousaf P. W. And Muhammad Hussain had also arrived at that time and helped him in apprehending the appellant red-handed on the spot. Leaving behind Sardar P. W. And Saleem to guard the dead body of the deceased and getting Mat. Hamida P. W. Admitted in the Civil Hospital, Muhammad Yaqub P. W., went to lodge the report at the police station.
8. Dr. Daman Ali (P. W. 1) medically examined the appellant at 6-00 p. m. On the 3rd of August, 1972, and found on his person an incised wound on the right index finger. The injury was simple caused by sharp-edged weapon within the duration of about eight hours.
' Dr. Shaista Akhtar Farooqi (P. W. 2) medically examined Mat. Hamida P. W. At 10-30 a. In. On the 3rd of August, 1972, and found on her person 22 incised wounds all over her body. The injuries had been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Ten injuries were simple and the rest of them were kept under observation but were subsequently declared as simple. She remained admitted in the hospital for less than 21 days and had sustained injuries within three hours from the time of examination.
' Dr. Muhammad Yousaf conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and since he was not available his post-mortem examination report (Exh. P. T.) was proved by Mahmood Abroad Laboratory Technician (P. W. 14). The post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased was conducted at 5-20 p. m. On the 3rd of August, 1972. She had four incised injuries on her person and two contused wounds. The incised injuries had been caused by a sharp- edged weapon and contused wounds by blunt weapon. Death in his opinion was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of cutting of right, frontal vessels and injury to both the intestines and liver. All the incised injuries were grievous and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The two blunt weapon injuries were simple.
9. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and carefully perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has attempted to argue that the defence version given by the appellant was the correct version. In support of his argument he submitted that Mst. Hamida P. W. Was declared hostile at the trial stage and had stated that at the time when injuries were being caused to her she could not identify the assailant. She stated that she made a different statement at the commitment stage implicating the appellant because she had been compelled to do so by the Police. According to learned counsel in such circumstances when she had admitted that she made a different statement before the Committing Magistrate under duress of the Police, she had not resiled from that statement and it should have not been transferred to the sessions file. He then also showed me a passage from the statement of Muhammad Yousaf P. W. Who had given some concession in favour of the appellant in the last para of the cross-examination. Learned counsel further pointed out that Sardar P. W. Had stated that Nazir acquitted co-accused was not present at the time when the appellant caused injuries to the deceased. He had further stated that Mst, Hamida P. W. Was not injured in his presence i. e., he was not a witness of the appellant causing injuries to Mst. Hamida P. W. Finally learned counsel submitted that Muhammad Yaqub Y. W. Was closely related to the deceased and, therefore, was an interested witness who should not be relied upon. The theory of learned counsel is that it was actually Muhammad Yaqub P. W. Who had caused injuries to Mst. Hamida P. W. As well as committed the murder of the deceased and that the appellant had been falsely implicated. The reasoning of learned counsel is not supported by the record at all. Mst. Hamida P. W. Obviously resiled from her earlier statement in order to give concession to the appellant. In the circumstances, therefore, her statement made before the Committing Magistrate was rightly transferred to the Sessions file and believed by the trial Judge.
Muhammad Yousaf P. W. Did support the prosecution version to the edict that the appellant with blood-stained clothes and holding chhura was coming out of the house of Mst. Hamida P. W. When he was apprehended by Muhammad Yaqub P. W. Sardar P. W. And Muhammad Yaqu P. W. Are consistent to their version as to how the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased.
Muhammad Yaqub P. W. May be closely related to the deceased but even if he is considered an interested witness, his testimony is corroborated by the statement of Mst. Hamida P. W. Made before the Committing Magistrate and has been rightly relied upon as we as the statements of other eye-witnesses. His testimony is further corroborated by the recoveries in this case, the motive as well as the medical evidence. The defence version is obviously improbable and was rightly rejected by the trial Court. In my considered opinion, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case as against the appellant beyond reasonabl doubt. His convictions and sentences, therefore, were quite proper and well deserved and are accordingly maintained. This appeal is dismissed.