' AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J.--- Noor Muhammad son of Khan and Khan son of Peer Baksh were tried under section 302/34/452, P.P.C. For the murder of Mst. Zarina Bibi and Mst. Riaz Bibi by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang, who vide his judgment dated 21-1-1991 convicted Noor Muhammad appellant under section 302/34, P.P.C. On two counts and sentenced him to death penalty on each count plus a fine of Rs,20,000 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months' S.I.
On each count. Half of the fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as required under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. He was also convicted under section 452, P.P.C.
And sentenced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 and in default of payment of fine to undergo two months' S.I.
2. Khan appellant was convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. On two counts and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 and in default to further suffer six months' S.I. On each count. All of the fine, if recovered, was ordered to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. He was also convicted under section 452, P.P.C. And sentenced to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo two months' S.I. All the sentences awarded were to run concurrently and benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also given to the appellant.
3. The appellants have filed the present appeal viz Criminal Appeal No,95 of 1991 whereas the learned Sessions Judge has referred the case to this Court under section 374, Cr.P.C. For confirmation of death penalty of Noor Muhammad, appellant vide Murder Reference No,66 of 1991.
We propose to dispose of both matters by this judgment.
4. The occurrence took place on 3-7-1990 at about 3 p.m. And the F.I.R., Exh.P.G., was recorded by Zafar Ahmed, A.S.I., P.W.2 on the same day at 4-20 p.m. At Police Station Mochiwala which is at a distance of about four miles from the place of occurrence, on the statement of Mst. Saleem Khatoon alias Shamon, P.W.7, mother of the deceased. The motive of occurrence is stated to be that appellant Khan had demanded hand of Mst. Zareena Bibi and Mst. Riaz Bibi, deceased daughters of P.W.7, for his sons Noor Muhammad and Mazhar Ali but the complainant P.W.7, had refused and thereafter she had contracted Nikah of her deceased daughters with Hamayun Khan and Abid Hussain sons of Allah Ditta, P.W. The appellants bore grudge and due to that grudge they in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of her daughters, Mst. Zareena Bibi and Mst. Riaz Bibi. As far the main occurrence, it is stated by Mst. Saleem Khatoon, complainant, P.W.7, that on the fateful day, that is, 3-7-1990, at about Peshiwela she alongwith her aforementioned two daughters was present in her house situated in her land in Chak No,171/JB when suddenly Noor Muhammad, appellant, armed with Chhuri and Khan, appellant, armed with a rifle entered into her house and both raised Lalkara that they would not spare alive Mst. Zareena Bibi and Mst. Riaz Bibi. The complainant and her daughters raised hue and cry which attracted her brother Allah Ditta, Abid Hussain, son-in-law and Ghulam Muhammad son of Salabat who were sitting in the condolence meeting of Shahmand at the nearby Dhari. Noor Muhammad gave a Chhuri blow which hit Mst. Riaz Bibi on the left side of her neck and he then gave second Chhuri blow which also hit Riaz Bibi on her right flank. Khan, appellant, gave a knife blow which hit Riaz Bibi on her shoulder. Mst. Zareena Bibi her daughter intervened to rescue her sister whereupon Noor Muhammad, appellant, gave her Chhuri blow which hit Zareena Bibi on her left flank. He gave a second Chhuri blow which hit her on chest and she fell down. Both the accused then gave Chhuri and knife blows to Zareena Bibi which hit on various parts of her body. Mst. Razia Bibi in order to save her life ran outside the house but Noor Muhammad, appellant, chased her and gave her repeated blows with Chhuri which hit on various parts of her body and she fell down near the Dhari.
Allah Ditta, Ghulam Muhammad and Abid Hussain reached at the spot and apprehended Noor Muhammad appellant alongwith Chhuri. Khan, appellant, while brandishing his knife in the air succeeded in running away. Mst. Zareena Bibi and Mst. Riaz Bibi succumbed to the injuries at the spot.
5. The investigation in this case was conducted by Naveed Anwer Khan, Inspector/S.H.O., P.W.9 who after receiving the file, proceeded to the spot. He found the dead bodies of the deceased lying at the site; prepared the inquest report, Exh.P.C. And Exh.P.F. Respectively and sent the dead bodies for postmortem examination through Chiragh Ali, F.C., P.W.3 alongwith inquest reports. Chiragh Ali, P.W.3 conveyed the dead bodies to the mortuary District Headquarters Hospital, Jhang on the same day at 8 p.m. The Investigating Officer inspected the spot and collected blood-stained earth vide memos Exh.P.N. And Exh.P.O., respectively of Mst. Zareena Bibi and Mst. Riaz Bibi from the place where they were murdered. He arrested appellant Noor Muhammad at the spot who was produced by Ghulam Muhammad and Abid Hussain P.Ws. He also took into possession blood-stained Chhuri P.6 which was produced before him by Noor Muhammad, appellant after making it into a sealed parcel vide recovery memo Exh.P.L. The Investigating Officer removed blood-stained clothes, that is, Shirt P.7, Shalwar P.8 and Patka P.9 from the person of Noor Muhammad appellant, made these clothes into a sealed parcel and took into possession vide memo Exh.P.M. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C.. On the same day, Khan, appellant was arrested. On 15-7-1990 the Investigating Officer interrogated Khan, appellant who on 25-7-1990 while in police custody led to the recovery of knife P.10 from his residential Kotha which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.P.Q. He also got prepared site plans Exh.P.K./1 and Exh.P.K./2 of the place of occurrence from Ahmad Ali, Patwari, P.W.6.
6. Dr. Muhammad Amjad Bhatti, P.W.1 Medical Officer, District Headquarters Hospital, Jhang on 4-7- 1990 at 8-00 a.m. Conducted the postmortem examination on the dead bodies of Mst. Zareena Bibi and Mst. Riaz Bibi, both identified by Humayun Khan and the complainant. He found 14 injuries on the dead body of Mst. Zareena Bibi. Death in his opinion was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to heart and liver (vital organs) resulting from stabbed wounds. All the injuries were ante-mortem and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injuries 12 and 13 were held to be by blunt weapons and the rest of the injuries, by sharp-edged weapon. The doctor found 10 injuries on the dead body of Mst. Riaz Bibi and death in his opinion was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injury to liver and lungs caused by stabbed wounds which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were declared to be ante-mortem. Injury No,1 was caused by blunt weapon while rest of the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon.
7. Mst. Saleem Bibi alias Shamon, P.W.7, complainant, mother of the deceased constantly and with confidence confirmed the motive and occurrence as narrated in the F.I.R., Exh.P.G. With minor discrepancies, not fatal to prosecution version. Ghulam Muhammad, P.W.8 and Naveed Anwer, Inspector, P.W.9 proved recovery of blood-stained Chhuri P.6 with one voice from appellant Noor Muhammad, which Noor Muhammad himself confirmed. Further, Ghulam Muhammad, P.W.8 and Naveed Anwer, Inspector/ Investigating Officer, P.W.9 proved the recovery of knife P.10 at the instance of the appellant Khan from his residential Kotha but the knife was not bloodstained.
Ghulam Muhammad, P.W.8 had been examined as an eye-witness of the occurrence besides the recovery witness. He supported the version of Mst. Saleem Bibi, complainant and conceded relationship with the deceased and the complainant. Allah Ditta, Abid Hussain and Humayun, eye- witnesses were given up. The Investigating Officer, P.W.9 conducted investigation of this case.
' The evidence of rest of the witnesses is of formal nature and they fully supported the formal aspects of the prosecution version.
8. The appellants when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Denied all the allegations levelled against them and pleaded innocence. Khan, appellant, denied the factum of recovery of knife P.10 at his instance and stated that it was planted upon him. He stated that he was declared innocent by the Police but due to pressure of the complainant party, he was challaned. He denied to make his statement on oath as envisaged by section 340(2), Cr.P.C. And also did not produce defence witness.
9. Noor Muhammad, appellant, admitted the occurrence and stated that he himself appeared before the Police after the occurrence and produced Chhuri P.6. He also admitted that the Investigating Officer got removed his blood-stained clothes from his person which belonged to him. He denied to make statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. However, he produced his defence evidence. Noor Muhammad in answer to question No,12 made a long statement wherein he alleged that on the day and time of occurrence he went to his deceased uncle Sultan's house and saw Mst. Riaz Bibi deceased standing near closed door of a room of her house and seeing him, she shouted to Mst. Zareena, deceased to run away upon which the door of the said room was opened and one unknown person ran away. Mst. Zareena Bibi came out of the room while having her Shalwar in her hand. He went inside that room and saw that her brassier was lying on a cot on which he was highly provoked because of her act of immorality and he took up Chhuri P.6 lying in that room and caused injuries to Mst. Zareena Bibi. Further, stated that Mst. Riaz Bibi was leading immoral life and she was facilitating commission of Zina by Mst. Zareena Bibi with unknown person at that time and that she managed to escape and run outside on which he chased her and murdered her under grave and sudden provocation. He confessed the murder of both Mst. Zareena Bibi and Mst. Riaz Bibi committed by him with Chhuri P.6 in the aforesaid manner and circumstances but his father Khan, appellant was neither present at the spot nor he participated in the occurrence. Ahmad Khan D.W 1 Manager of the National Bank deposed that Mst. Zareena Bibi was account holder of his Bank and her Account number was 2188.
10. The learned trial Judge believing the prosecution evidence vide impugned judgment, convicted the appellants under section 302/34/452, P.P.C. And awarded them the sentences indicated above.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that it was an unwitnessed crime which took place when none of the P.Ws. Was present at the scene of occurrence; the witnesses being closely related to the deceased made false statements on account of their blood relations; the ocular version is not trustworthy; the belated F.I.R. Was recorded after preliminary investigation as such no reliance can be placed on this dubious document. Further, it was contended that the Police did not conduct the investigation honestly and impartially which has greatly prejudiced the case of the defence. According to him, the motive, though alleged, has not been proved through independent evidence. The defence version and evidence has not been properly appreciated as there was no reason to murder both the deceased being sisters in relation to Noor Muhammad, appellant.
Learned counsel pleaded that there were two versions of the case and relied on Zahid Parvez and another v. The State PLD 1991 SC 558 and Shahid Raza and another v. The State 1992 SCM R 1647.
12. We have respectfully gone through the precedents cited by learned counsel for the appellants.
The facts of the case in hand are quite different from the cited precedents and the law laid down therein is not applicable here in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Learned counsel tried to place the case in juxtaposition and relied upon Ali Muhammad v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 557.
The evidence on record and the surrounding circumstances proved case of the prosecutionbeyond any doubt and the citation 1993 PCr.LJ 557 is not attracted as the defence version raised by Noor Muhammad appellant has no substance which is not reliable as the same has not been spelt out from the evidence on record. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that important witnesses, namely, Humayun Khan, Abid Hussain and Allah Ditta were left by the prosecution. It is true that the prosecution did not produce the abovementioned P.Ws. As unnecessary but then the prosecution is not bound to produce eye-witnesses as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Naseer Muhammad v. The State 1985 SCM R 60 that it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to examine each and every witness. The contention that section 452, P.P.C. Is not attracted is incorrect. The learned counsel contended that Noor Muhammad, appellant, might have acted under the influence of his father Khan, appellant and relied upon Mukhtar Hussain and another v. The State 1985 SCM R 479, Sher Hussain v. The State PLD 1959 SC 480 and Munir Ahmed v. The State-1994 SCM R 80 whereas Noor Muhammad, appellant, admitted the occurrence with bald plea of sudden and grave provocation and not under the influence of Khan, appellant, father of Noor Muhammad. The case-law, therefore, referred to is not attracted to the present case. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that the witnesses are interested and related to the deceased and are not trustworthy in the absence of independent witnesses. It was submitted that Khan, appellant is an aged man and has been falsely involved in this case and the injury attributed to him is minor and the recovery of knife P.10 has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, Khan, appellant, was declared as innocent by the Police.
13. We find no force in the submissions of the learned defence counsel as the F.I.R., Exh.P.G.
Containing all the necessary particulars had been promptly lodged without deliberation. Neither the eye-witnesses had enmity nor motive to falsely involve the appellants in the case. The ocular account was fully corroborated by medical evidence and confessed by Noor Muhammad, appellant. The crime weapon P.6 was recovered from the spot from the possession of Noor Muhammad appellant. Knife P.10 was recovered at the instance of Khan appellant but it was not stained with human blood. Mere relationship of eye-witnesses with the deceased in the absence of any enmity is not sufficient to discard their straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence. It is well-established principle of criminal jurisprudence that in criminal cases, the evidence of a witness is not to be rejected mechanically merely because the witness is an interested person but the Court has to be careful in weighing such evidence and see whether the evidence strikes to count as genuine or probable. No doubt, the injury caused by Khan appellant was minor and not fatal, the participation of appellant is not open to doubt as there is nothing on record to create any doubt of his participation in the occurrence. The minor discrepancies appearing in the evidence of eye-witnesses here and there as pointed out by the learned counsel per se are not fatal to the prosecution version and not sufficient to disbelieve the ocular evidence especially when their presence at the scene of occurrence is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
14. We have given our anxious consideration as to the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants. There are no mitigating circumstances in favour of Noor Muhammad, appellant. As such he was rightly awarded death sentence which is the normal penalty prescribed under the law.
So, while maintaining the conviction of Noor Muhammad appellant under sections 302/34/452, we confirm his death sentence. The sentence of fine, as imposed by the learned trial Court is also maintained. No doubt, no fatal injury on the bodies of both the deceased is attributed to Khan, appellant, at least his participation as one of the culprits is not open to doubt and he is vicariously liable for the murder. Respectfully following the law laid down in the case of Muhammad Ali v. The State 1985 SCM R 203 we are of the view that conviction of Khan appellant is fully merited and no interference is called for in that regard. Criminal Appeal No,95 of 1991 is, therefore, dismissed. The Murder Reference stands disposed of. Death sentence of Noor Muhammad appellant is confirmed.