' Manzoor appellant who was convicted under section 302 of the P. P. C. By the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal of having murdered Mst. Rahmo deceased on 7-t-1970 at 11-00 a.m. In the area of Chak No, 26/11-L Police Station Ghaziabad and was awarded the sentence of imprisonment for life has appealed ' The appellant is the son of Khan complainant from his first wife Mst. Fatima and Mst. Rahmo is the second wife of the complainant and step-mother of the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that about four years prior to the occurrence, Khan complainant married Mst. Rahmo deceased. He had two sons and six daughters from Mst. Fatima and two sons and one daughter fr,m Mst. Rahmo deceased. Both the wives and their children were residing at the Bhaini of the complainant in the area of Chak No, 26/1:-L. On 6-6-1970 the complainant went to Ghaziabad for getting cotton-seed. On his return he brought some sweet- meat for his children and handed it over to Mst. Rahmo deceased. She kept the sweet-meat in a box. Mst. Fatima mother of the appellant, broke open the lock of the box and took out some sweet- meat stealthily. In the evening Khan P. W. Asked the deceased to give him the sweet-meat so that it may be distributed amongst the children. Mst. Rahmo deceased went inside the kotha to bring the sweetmeat but she found that the lock of the box was lying broken and major portion of the sweet- meat had been removed. Khan complainant enquired from Mst. Fatima about the sweet-meat but she denied having removed it. This annoyed her and she retorted that Mst. Rahmo had made her life miserable. Manzoor appellant reached home at that very moment and he gave a push to the deceased. Khan complainant picked up a sota and gave a blow to the appellant who gave a blow to the complainant in return. The prosecution story goes that on the next day at about 11-00 a.m.
The complainant was sitting in his house alongwith Khan (not produced). Mit. Rahmo was baking breads when Manzoor appellant armed with a toka advanced towards her. He caught her pigtail and dragged her inside the room. He picked up a pestle and rolled her pigtail around it and keeping his foot on the pigtail inflicted toka blows on her neck. On hearing the alarm All Muhammad (not produced) and Roshan also reached the spot and saw the occurrence from over the compound wall. The complainant and aforesaid Khan tried to apprehend the appellant but he threatened them with dire consequences and took to his heels alongwith the toka, Leaving the dead body in the custody of Roshan and Khan, the complainant went to Police Station Ghaziabad where he reported the occurrence to Muhammad Asif S. H.
0. At 12 noon vide F I. R. Exh. P. A,
3. After recording the F. I. R. The S. H. O. Reached the spot and prepared the inquest report Exh. P. K.
And injury statement P L of the dead body and despatched it to the mortuary for post-mortem examination He collected blood-stained earth from the room and the courtyard of the house of the complainant and made into separate parcels, vide Exh. P. C. And P. D. Respectively. He secured blood-stained pestle (P. 1) entangled in the heir of the deceased and made it into a sealed parcel vide Exit, P. B. He arrested the appellant on the same day from Sheikh Fazil Bus Stand and removed blood-stained shirt (P. 2) and blood-stained chaddar (P. 3) from his person and made these clothes into seealed parcels vide memo. Exh. P. E. On the same day the appellant, while in custody got recovered blood-stained toka (P. 4) from a deserted a hole/ from underneath a heap of grass which was made into a sealed parcel vide memo. P. F. After the investigation the case under section 302 of the P. P. C. Was sent up against the appellant.
4. On 8-5-1970 at 8 a.m. Dr. Muhammad Saeed, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Chiehawatni performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of,1st: Kehmo deceased and found the following injuries on it: (1)Incised wound x24" cutting the spine on the back of the upper- most part of the neck extending to both sides of neck. On the left side it cut through the pinna while on the right side it went to the level just below the angle of the jaw.
(2)Incised wound i" x x bone deep on the left angle of jaw.
(3)Incised wound 2' x x i" on the back of lower part, of the jack.
(4)Incised wound 2' x on the back of the neck f below the injury No, 3.
(5)Abrasion 34" x I" on the back of upper part of the left upper arm.
(6)Abrasion 2" x r on the laternal aspect of left upper aria, (7)Abrasion lf x on the hack of left upper arm.
(8)Skin deep incised wound 2' x i" just below the left elbow.
(9)Abrasion 1" x 1/8' on the fronte of right shoulder.
(10)Four abrasions x r each on the back of right elbow. (11) Abrasion f' x ir on the back of left elbow.
(l2) Two abrasions x r each on the front of right knee.
(13) Abrasion on the front of left knee.
' Vertebral column and spinal cord were cut at the level of their cervical vetebra, Carotee vessels were cut on both sides. In the opinion of the doctor death vas (lite to shock on account of injury to the upper part of the spine. This injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injured were ante-mortem. The injuries No, 1 to 4 and 8 were caused with sharp- edged weapon and rest by blunt weapon.
' On 8-6-70 the same doctor examined Khan complainant and found multiple abrasions of different directions on the back of his right hand. Injuries were simple caused by blunt weapon within 18 to 24 hours.
' On the same day the same doctor examined the appellant and found an abrasion ire' x 1110' on the right temple region. The injury was simple cause(, by blunt weapon within 24 hours.
5. To support its case the prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all its mainstay being the ocular evidence furnished by Khan complainant Roshan (i'. W. 8) in the Committing Court. At the trial these P. Ws. Did not support the prosecution version and they a ere cross-examined by the 1' P. With the permission of the Court. Their statements in the committer Court w,re transferred to the Sessions file under section 288 of the Cr. P. C. And ar.: substantive evidence in the case. The prosecution also relied on the motive and the recovery of blood-stained clothes and blood- stained toga iron' the appellant.
' Tire appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. He admitted that Mei Fatima is his mother and Rehmo was his step-mother. When asked to explain his injury he stated that he was beaten by the police during the investigation. He gave a counter-version of the occurrence as under :- "I have been falsely implicated on account of the annoyance of my fatacr Khan P. W. With me. After the second marriage of my father 1 was turned out from his house and I preferred residence with my brother Rajab Ali. My uncle Roshan had engaged his daughter lse. Naziran with my brother Rajah Ali. Subsequently he broke the engagement and engaged Met. Eniziran with Zahoor, his another nephew. Nest. Naziran wanted to marry my brother Rajab All and she left the !Louse of her father and came to the house of my uncle Waryain. She in consultation with Mat. Rehmat Bibi deceased married 1st, Naziran to my brother Rajah. Ali. This annoyed my ueele Roshan, Amir his son and Zahoor aforesaid who became our enemies. Aroir his son and Zahoor aforesaid committed the minder of my uncle Waryam and they were also after the life of Met, Rehmat Bibi deceased. I had no grudge against the deceased and my father Khan P. W. Named me in the F.
1. R. On account of suspicion."
' No evidence was led in defence.
6. The teemed trial Judge preferred to rely on the statements of Khan complainant and Roshae (P.
W. 8) made by them in the committing Court. He also believed the motive and the recovery of blood-stained clothes and blood-stained toka from the appellant and on the basis of this evidence found him guilty of murder.
' Learned counsel for the appellant contended that nobody had been the occurrence and the complainant who was annoyed with the appellant had implicated him latter on mere suspicion. He further argued that on coming to know that his suspicion was baseless, he gave the correct version at the trial. He also pointed out a discrepancy in the evidence of the recovery witnesses regarding the place of the recovery of toka and contended that the evidence relating to the recovery was unreliable. I have gone through the entire evidence and have given careful consideration to toe arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. At the trial the complainant supported the earlier incident which took place over the theft of sweet-meat and his statement on this point goes un-challenged on the record. This incident is also mentioned in the F. I. R. And finds support from the medical evidence as well. The complainant stated that when Mst. Rehmo deceased and his first wife nisi. Fatima were quarrelling over the theft of the sweet-meat the appellant returned home at that very time and he gave a push to the deceased. He further stated that he picked up sow and gave a blow to the appellant who gave him a sota blow in return. The complainant and the appellant were examined by the doctor on 8-6-70 and he found multiple abrasions on the complainant and an abrasion on the appellant. The duration of these injuries was within '23 hours. From this evidence it is amply established that a day before the occurrence there was a quarrel between the mother of the appellant and Mst. Rehma deceased in which the appellant and his father Khan complain-Ant exchanged blows. It can therefore safely be inferred that the appellant was annoyed with the deceased. The motive attributed to the appellant thus stands established.
7. La his statement before the committing Magistrate the complainant clearly stated that at the time of occurrence he was present in his house and Mst. Rehmo deceased was baking bread at that time. He further stated that Manzoor appellant armed with a toka advanced towards her, caught her pigtail dragged her into the room and keeping his foot on the pigtail gave toka blows on her neck. He further stated that the occurrence was also witnessed by Roshan P. W. And Ali Muhammad (not produced). At the trial he resiled from his statement and deposed that on the day of the occurrence at 10-A arm, he reached his house and found Mst. Rehmo lying dead on the ground and a toka was lying there in the pool of blood. He further stated that the appellant was not present there. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the complainant was annoyed with the appellant therefore be had made a false stating against him in the committing Court. In cross-examination by the defence the complainant admitted that the accused had used harsh words against him in the committingCourt therefore, he felt annoyed and made the statement against him. This admission is of no avail to the appellant because he was named by the complainant in the P. I. R. Which was lodged prior to his statement in the committing Court. It was next contended that the statement of the complainant in the committing Court too was self- contradictory, therefore no reliance could be placed on that statement. In that statement in examination-in-chief the complainant stated that the appellant had given toka blows on the neck of the deceased in his presence but in cross examination he gave out that he had reached his house on hearing alarm from a distance of one kilia and had seen the appellant running away. This concession in the cross-examination also cannot come to the rescue of the appellant. The complainant is the father of the appellant and there is no reason to believe that he could name the appellant as the assailant of the deceased on mere suspicion. The reasons for his resiling from the statement made in the committing Court are not far to see. In the committing Court Roshan P. W.
Stated that he had seen the appellant inflicting toka blows on the neck of the deceased but at the trial he gave out that on hearing the alarm he rushed to the Bisaini of the complainant and saw Mst. Rebmo lying dead. He further stated that the appellant was not present there. In his statement before the Committing Magistrate he admitted that he had cordial relations with the complainant.
He seems to have toed the line of the complainant on the latter's request. 1 am of the view that the statements made by the complainant and Roshan P. W. In the committing Court were true and rightly accepted by the learned trial Judge in preference to the statement made by them at the trial with the deliberate object of saving the appellant from the consequences of his act.
8. The statements in the committing Court find substantial corroboration from the recovery of blood-stained clothes and blood-stained toka from the appellant.
9. The recoveries are supported by Farid P. W. 5, Muhammad Aziz P. W. 6 and the investigating Officer P. W. O. The statement of the Investigating Officer regarding the recovery of blood-stained clothes from the person of the appellant goes unchallenged on the record and the statements of the other recovery witnesses were also not seriously challenged in cross-examination on this point.
The only discrepancy pointed out in the statements of the recovery witnesses was that Aziz P. W. 6 stated that the toka was recovered from bush in Square No, 45 while Farid P. W. 5 and the Investigating Officer stated that it was recovered from a heap of straw lying in the khola of one Aziz.
The statements of Farid and Investigating Officer are consistent therefor. I do not attach any importance to the statement of Muhammad Aziz P. W. That the toka was recovered from underneath a bush.
10. The occurrence took place at about 11-00 a.m. And the F. I. R. Was lodged promptly by the father of the appellant at the Police Station at 12-00 noon, the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station being two miles. In the F. I. R. The motive, the names of the appellant and the eye-witnesses, the manner in which the occurrence took place and the weapon used by the appellant are clearly mentioned. The appellant was arrested on the very day of occurrence with blood-stained clothes on his person. He led to the recovery of blood-stained toka on the same day.
Thus there is overwhelming evidence on the record to connect the appellant with the commission of murder. The complainant is the father of the appellant and it is impossible to believe that he had substituted him for the real culprit. I am, therefore, of the view that the appellant was rightly convicted. For the foregoing reasons I find no substance in this appeal and it is hereby dismissed.