' Appellant Gullu alias Gullan has preferred this appeal through the jail authorities from his conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs, 500 or in default of payment of fine further R. I. For three months recorded under section 302, P. P. C. By the Sessions Judge, Lyalipur on 3-7-1975.
2. The case against the appellant is that he had murdered his wife Mst. Nasim by strangulation in the morning of 22-9-1971 in the room where he then resided. The appellant had been married to the deceased about six years before the occurrence and had been living in one of the two rooms of the Dhari of his father-in-law Muhammad P. W. The appellant had been, for a few days before the occurrence, insisting that his wife should move with him to some other locality but she was not agreeing to it. At the relevant time, Muhammad, on waking up, happened to glance towards the room of Mst. Nasim when he saw that the appellant had felled her on the ground and had been strangulating her with a piece of cloth. At Muhammad's alarm, Ghulam Muhammad and Manzoor P. Ws. Who had also been sleeping there, got up and they all tried to rescue the deceased but the appellant took up a spear and threatened them, whereafter he ran away. The witnesses on coming into the room found the deceased bleeding from the nose and the mouth moments later, she died at the spot. Muhammad P. W. Went to Pir Mehal, Police Station, where he lodged report at 7-00 a.m.
The same morning. The appellant who had absconded was declared a proclaimed offender.
Safdar Ali A. S. I. Of Jhang Police Station on receipt of a secret information on 3-7-1972 of the whereabouts of the appellant, arranged a raid and succeeded in arresting him.
3. The basic evidence in the case against the appellant is the oral testimony of Muhammad complainant (P. W. 7) and Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 9). The eye-witness Manzoor, who had fully supported the prosecution case before the committing Court, was, however, given up "as unnecessary". Both the eye-witnesses supported the prosecution version. The medical evidence confirmed the presence of ligature marks all around the neck and the fact that the death had been due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation. The appellant had, in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C., admitted his marriage with the deceased but had denied his involvement in the murder. His explanation was :- "I had been made to get out of my residential dhari by the deceased's father, some two months before the occurrence. She either was killed by the complainant or by some other person or she committed suicide by hanging herself. I came to know of the occurrence after about six months when I was in jail in another case of District Jhang."
' He had denied the factum of his ascendance and had stated :- "My father-in-law Muhammad complainant turned me out of the house about two months before the occurrence and that I had been living in village Mukhiana of district Jhang ever since that time.
1 was in the employment of Ghulam Abbas Bherwana at the time of occurrence."
' The learned trial Judge rejected the story of motive for the reason that "no prudent man can believe that the wife's refusal to agree to the accused's point of view could have enraged him to such an extent that he became intent on killing her." He also was not satisfied with regard to the presence, at the crucial time, of eye-witness Ghulam Muhammad, which presence he termed as having been contrived merely to prove the complainant's solitary statement with some evidence in support." He, however, believed the oral testimony of Muhammad, father-in-law of the appellant, because "there is no reason why he would have involved him (appellant) in a false case of murder ". He accordingly convicted him of the murder. He, however, awarded the lesser penalty on account of the failure of the prosecution to establish motive and as the circumstances which had led to the commission of the offence had been completely in the dark.
4. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant has attacked the ocular testimony, inter alia, on the new ground that his brother had earlier abducted a woman of the complainant party and as that brother had already died, the complainant party had substituted him (appellant) for the unknown culprit of the present murder. The plea taken by the appellant during the trial and now in the memorandum of appeal has to be rejected in the absence of material to support the same. He had also led no evidence to show that he had been living elsewhere from two months before the occurrence. There is, on the other hand, reason to accept the ocular testimony, particularly of Muhammad P. W. He is the father-in-law and a cousin of the appellant and a natural witness. He had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. He had lodged the report without delay, in which he had clearly implicated the appellant. He was corroborated by the medical evidence. That neither he nor the other eye-witnesses, if present, had been able to intervene, is explained by the fact that the appellant had picked up a spear with which he had threatened them and thus managed to escape. The reason for rejecting the evidence of the other ocular witness, namely, Ghulam Muhammad, is not sufficient because he being a relation of the complainant could have spent the night at the latter's dhart, even though his own house was only 2-1/2 miles away. However, the exclusion of his evidence does not affeet the testimony of Muhammad P. W.
5. There are two other circumstance pointing to the guilt of the appellant. The evidence, particularly of Nabi Bakhsh (P. W. 6), the landlord of the complainant, shows that the appellant had been living at the complainant's dhari at the relevant time. In that case, and since there is nothing to show that someone else had been living in the room, there is strong probability of the murder having been committed by none other than the appellant. This is further strengthened by his ascendance. The Investigating Officer stated on oath that proceedings under section 512, Cr. P. C. Had been taken against the appellant who was not found during the investigation. This was supported by Safdar Ali, A. S. I. (P. W. 8) who belonged to another Police Station and who knowing that the appellant was wanted in the murder case, had, on receipt of secret information regarding the whereabouts of the appellant, conducted a raid and succeeded in apprehending after nine and a hal months of the ascendance. Ascendance, as held by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Bashir alias Shikra v. The State (1) is an important circumstance against the accused.
6. I have considered the fact of the discovery, in the post-mortem examination, of semi-disgusted food in the stomach of the deceased, on the basis of which it had been urged in the lower Court that the occurrence had not taken place in the morning. The contention must have proceeded from an assumption that the deceased had taken her meal last the previous evening. Since there is no evidence in regard to the last ingestion of food, the presence of semi-digested food in the stomach would not lead to any conclusion.
7. I am, thus, satisfied that on the basis of the material on record, the conviction and the sentence of the appellant are fully merited. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal. The appellant shall be informed through the jail authorities.
(1) 1970 SCM R 351