1. ' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.--- Muhammad Khalid (25) son of Allah Bakhsh was sent up for trial by Police Station Mumtazabad, Multan for the murder of Mst. Razia Bibi, his wife, and murderous assault on Mst. Suraya Bibi. Sessions Judge, Multan vide judgment, dated 27-7-1992 found him guilty under section 302, P.P.C. And sentenced to death with a fine of Rs,20,000, or in default of payment of fme, R.I. For one year. It was directed that one-half of the fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation. He was also found guilty under section 307, P.P.C. For launching murderous assault on Mst. Suraya Bibi P.W., and sentenced to four years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,10,000 or in default of payment of fine, undergo further R.I. For six months. The amount of fine, if recovered, one-half of it was directed to be paid to the injured, P.W. The convict has appealed. Case is also before us for confirmation of death sentence. Both the matters shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. Prosecution story in brief, as disclosed in F.I.R. Exh.P.J. Lodged by Mst. Bashiran Bibi, was to the effect that her niece Mst. Razia Begum was married to Khalid son of Allah Bakhsh three years earlier. On 26-2-1990 she brought Mst. Razia, her niece, to her house with permission of her husband Khalid. On 27-2-1990 Khalid came to her house at 3 p.m. And took Mst. Razia, his wife, to his house, situated at Jail Morr. While leaving, he asked the first informant that he was going to Karachi on the following day, therefore, she could take Mst. Razia to her house. On 28-2-1990 first informant with Mst. Surriya Bibi, wife of Muhammad Sharif, who was first informant's daughter-in- law and sister of Mst. Razia, went to Mst. Razia's house at about 3 p.m. Khalid was not present in the house, therefore, she took Mst. Razia. At about 4 p.m., when they reached near Jail Mon, Khalid came from the opposite direction and asked them to go back home. On their refusal he got infuriated and asked them to step aside as he wanted to talk to his wife Mst. Razia. He took out a knife and gave a blow in the abdomen of Mst. Razia whereupon she fell down. Mst. Surriya stepped forward to rescue, whereupon Khalid gave two successive injuries on the right side of abdomen of Mst. Surriya. On raising alarm, Khalid decamped along with his knife. First informant transported Mst. Razia and Mst. Surriya to Nishtar Hospital, where they were under treatment. Motive for the occurrence was that Khalid used to forbid his wife Mst. Razia-from going out with the first informant. On seeing his wife going with the first informant he lost his temper and injured her.
2. ' Occurrence in this case took place on 28-2-1990 at 4 p.m. Near Jail Morr, Multan, 2 Km. From Police Station Mumtazabad. Complaint Exh.P.J. With regard to the occurrence was made on 28-2-1990 by Mst. Bashiran Bibi g.W.7, at Nishtar Hospital at 11-55 at night, which was recorded by Faiz Rasool, Inspector, P.W.10. Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.J./1 was registered the same night at 12-50 a.m. On 1-3-1990 by Talib Hussain, A.S.-I./Moharrir, P.W.6.
3. ' Faiz Rasool, S.-I. P.W.10, after recording the complaint Exh.P.J. Sent the same for registration of the case and took into possession Burqa P.4, vest P.5, shirt P.6 and Shalwar P.7, all blood-stained, of Mst.
4. Razia deceased vide memo. Exh.P.K. He recorded the statement of Mst. Surriya in the hospital. From the spot he secured blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.M. And sealed it into a parcel. On 2-3- 1990 he learnt about the death of Mst. Razia, therefore,. He came to the hospital and prepared her injury statement Exh.P.E. And inquest report Exh.P.F. And sent the dead body for autopsy. He got prepared site plan Exhs.P.G. And P.G./1 from the draftsman and gave his notes in red ink thereunder.
5. On 6-3-1990, he arrested Muhammad Khalid, accused while coming out of his house, who got recovered Chhuri P.8 from his house, which was blood-stained vide memo. Exh.P.L. After usual investigation he challenged the accused.
6. ' Dr. Noor Ahmad, Medical Officer, Casualty, Civil Hospital, Multan, P.W.1, on 28-2-1990 examined Mst.
7. Surriya daughter of Muhammad Sharif, who was brought by her brother Shaukat Hussain at 11 p.m.
8. And found the following injuries:--
(1) A stab wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. Just above the level of right lobe of liver, below last rib of right chest, 9 c.m. Away from the umbilicus.
(2) A stab wound 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. About 2-1/4 c.m. Towards right side of injury No,l. Both the injuries were kept under observation. They were caused with a sharp-edged weapon. Subsequently both the injuries were declared simple.
9. ' P.W.2 Dr. Sohail Aslam, the then Casualty Medical Officer, Nishtar Hospital, Multan, on 28-2-1990 at 6-27 p.m. Conducted medical examination of Mst. Razia and found the following injuries:--
(1) An incised wound on left side of abdomen 5 c.m. Super lateral to umbilicus. Its size was 2.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. x depth which was not probed. Intestines were coming out of the wound. A perforation was visible in the loop of intestine.
(2) An incised wound in mid axillary line on left side of chest located on the horizontal line drawn from xiphisternum and 19 c.m. From xiphisternum, size measured 2.5 c.m. x 1.5 c.m. But the depth was not probed.
10. ' Injury No,1 was found grievous and dangerous to life, and injury No,2 was kept under observation.
11. ' P.W.3 Dr. Muhammad Altaf Hussain, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Multan, on 3-3-1990 conducted the post-mortem examination on tlae dead body of Mst. Razia and found the following injuries:--
(1) An incised wound 3 c.m. Long bearing four stitches on the front of left side of abdomen 5 c.m.
12. Upper and lateral aspect of umbilicus in oblique direction.
(2) An incised wound 3 c.m. Long bearing three stitches on the outer aspect of left chest 12 c.m.
13. Below the axilla in mid-axillary line. There was an operated incised wound 17 c.m. Long bearing 12 stitches (right paramecian) on the right side of abdomen.
14. ' In his opinion, the death had occurred on account of haemorrhage and shock caused by injuries Nos. 1 and 2 collectively and separately, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
3. Prosecution in support of its case produced 10 witnesses in all. The doctors who had initially examined the injured and subsequently conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Razia, have already been discussed. P.W.4 Shaukat Hayat, Draftsman, had prepared site plan Exhs.P.G. And P.G.1 on the direction of the police. P.W.5 Muhammad Iqbal, Constable had escorted the dead body for autopsy. Talib Hussain, S.-I. P.W.6 had prepared formal F.I.R. Exh.P.J./1 on the basis of complaint Exh.P.J. Ocular account was furnished by. Mst. Bashiran Bibi and Mst. Suraya Bibi, P. Ws. 7 and 8, respectively. P.W.9 Bashir Ahmad had witnessed the recovery of bloodstained Chhuri P.8 effected at the instance of the appellant. The case was investigated by Faiz Rasool, Sub- Inspector, P.W.10.
15. ' At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted the prosecution allegations and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question he stated that on the fateful day he had gone out. When came back, he found his house locked, therefore, he scaled over the boundary wall and found his wife lying on bed with a stranger. In the meanwhile Mst. Suraya shouted informing regarding his arrival, whereupon the stranger tried to escape. His wife Mst. Razia and her sister Mst. Suraya in order to help the stranger to escape caught hold of him. He out of grave and sudden provocation picked up the knife lying nearby, and caused injuries to both of them. He, however, neither appeared on oath nor produced any defence witness.
4. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the case against the appellant has not been proved. Both the eye-witnesses were interested and inimical, therefore, could not be relied upon without independent corroboration, which was not available. In the alternative it was asserted that the appellant had acted under grave and sudden provocation, therefore, his case fell under section 302(c), P.P.C. As the appellant had pleaded the same in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And it finds support from the prosecution evidence as well. The contentions were opposed by learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State.
5. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the file. The prosecution in order to establish its case has mainly relied upon the ocular account furnished by Mst. Bashiran and Mst.
16. Suraya Bibi, P.Ws.7 and 8, respectively. Mst. Suraya Bibi was real sister of Mst. Razia, deceased, Mst.
17. Bashiran, P.W.7 was also related to her. Both the witnesses corroborated the version as given by them in their statements before the police. They were put to the test of lengthy cross-examination, wherein it transpired that they had tried to improve upon the version given to the police. During cross-examination it came on record that Mst. Razia, deceased, wife of the appellant had left the house without her husband's permission. It has also come on record that the appellant did not approve of his wife mixing up with the witnesses. The defence had also produced in evidence a copy of the F.I.R. Wherein a case under section 295, P.P.C. Was registered against Mst. Bashiran, P.W.
18. The defence was able to bring on record from the witnesses in cross-examination that when the appellant met the deceased in the company of the witnesses, he asked his wife to go back home, but she refused. Thereafter he caused her injuries, which resulted in her death.
19. As far as the defence taken by the appellant that on the fateful day he came to his house and found his wife in bed with a stranger whereupon he lost self-control and under grave and sudden provocation caused her death is concerned, after consideration we are of the view that no reliance on it can be placed. Blood-stained earth was not secured from inside or outside the house.
20. Therefore, the plea taken by the appellant in his statement without oath is .An afterthought. As far as the eye-witnesses are concerned, we have noticed that they had no enmity or against the appellant. It was not even suggested to them that on account of any motive or animosity they were deposing against him. Mst. Suraya was injured, therefore, her presence in any case is established beyond doubt. The mere relationship with the deceased would hardly be a ground to rule out of consideration their statements. They, however, made certain improvements with which they were confronted, but that would not mean that they were not present or have set up a story totally different from the one given by them initially. \We feel that reliance on their statements can be placed.
21. ' For the reasons discussed above, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. As far as_ the question of sentence is concerned, it requires serious consideration. From the prosecution evidence it is apparent that he had some cause for provocation as his wife had left the house without his consent. In the past he also used to forbid his wife from meeting the witnesses. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal, We convert the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The sentence awarded under section 307, P.P.C. As well as the sentences of fine, or imprisonment in default of payment of fine, are maintained. The sentences shall run concurrently. The appellant shall also be given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
22. ' Death sentence is NOT confirmed.
23. Death sentence not confirmed.