1. G. M. SHAH, J.-The appellant was tried by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, who by his judgment dated 28-2-1976 convicted him of an offence under section 302, P. P. C. And sentenced him to death. He has preferred the appeal against the said judgment of conviction. The case is also before us under section 374, Cr. P. C. For confirmation of the death sentence. This judgment will therefore, dispose of both, the appeal, as well as the reference.
2. In this case the appellant is accused of having killed three persons, his wife Mst. Sughran, his mother-in-law Mst. Rani, and his father-in-law, Muhammad Siddiq. The facts of the case, briefly, are that the appellant is Katpar/Kori by caste. He was married to Mst. Sughran. He was not working and had no source of livelihood. He had agreed to live in the house of his father-in-law, deceased Muhammad Siddiq, as "Ghar Jiwai". Due to certain differences, be had left the house; but came back at the intervention of their well-wishers. He had, then, executed an agreement (Exh. 9) on October 15, 1972 and consented to live with his father-in-law, without raising any objection. After about 7-8 months, he again left the house, without his wife who stayed behind, in the house of her father. Finding no other alternative, she filed a suit for dissolution of marriage (Exh. 8) on or about 7-3-1974. The appellant had the impression that the suit was filed by his wife, at the instance of her mother Mst. Rani, and her father, Muhammad Siddiq. He was very much annoyed over it. He had approached some people, and finally, the dispute was brought before Muhammad Kamil Bhutto (P.
2. W. 7) who had settled the matter, only about 15-20 days before this occurrence, and in consequence thereof, the appellant had again come back, and was living with his wife, in the house of his in-laws, deceased Muhammad Siddiq and Mst. Rani. Under the terms of the compromise, the appellant was to pay Rs. 50 per month as house expenses. A couple of days before the murders, the case of the dissolution of marriage was fixed, and the appellant had asked his father-in-law that he should ask his daughter Mst. Sughran, wife of the appellant, to have the suit withdrawn, in terms of the compromise; but he replied to him to wait, till they were satisfied about his (appellant's) character, as to how he (appellant) was treating them, and if they were satisfied, then the case would be withdrawn. On this reply, the appellant was annoyed, and started thinking as to how he should get rid of them.
3. On 9-4-1974 at about 7-30 a.m. His father-in-law, deceased Muhammad Siddiq left the house early for his business of selling the old clothes in the bazar, and the appellant took the opportunity to kill his mother-in-law, as well as, his wife, who were the only inmates in the house. He first attacked his mother-in-law, Mst. Rani with the hatchet, and caused her as many as nine incised injuries. When she fell down, he started attacking his wife, Mst. Ghulam Sughran with the same hatchet and caused her seven incised injuries. During the attack Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 3) happened to come to the house, to meet his sister Mst. Rani. As he was climbing the staircase of the house, he heard the cries. He rushed inside the house, where he saw the appellant giving hatchet blows to his wife, Mst. Sughran. When the appellant saw Ghulam Muhammad entering the house, he challenged him not to go near him. The appellant, then, left the house, with the hatchet, and went to the bazar in search of his father-in-law, deceased Muhammad Siddiq.
3. In the meantime, Ghulam Mnhammad (P. W. 3) had followed the appellant towards the bazar. On the way, he met Muhammad Ismail (P. W. 4) in the street, whom, he narrated the entire incident, and asked him to go and sit inside the house, where the two ladies were lying injured, and he would follow the appellant to the bazar, as he was armed with the hatchet and might kill his father-in- law. When Ghulam Muhammad reached near the place where deceased Muhammad Siddiq was selling clothes, he found the appellant giving hatchet blows to him. Many persons had collected there including Shaft Muhammad (P. W. 5) and Muhammad Bux (P. W. 6) who had also witnessed the incident. The appellant threatened the witnesses, who had collected at the spot not to go near him, otherwise he would kill them, as well. Thereafter, he went to Muhammad Kamil (P. W. 7), who had earlier settled the matter between the appellant and his in-laws. Muhammad Kamil was sitting in his shop. It was 8 or 8-30 a.m. Appellant was carrying the blood-stained hatchet in his hand, and was wearing bloodstained clothes on his person. He informed Muhammad Kamil that he had killed his wife Mst. Sughran, his mother-in-law Mst. Rani and Muhammad Siddiq his father-in-law.
4. Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 3) then rushed to inform Hamid (P. W. 2) brother of deceased Muhammad Siddiq, and narrated all the details of the occurrence to him and the manner in which the appellant had killed the three deceased persons. Hamid accompanied him to the house, where Ismail (P. W. 4) was present. He saw it himself that Mst. Sughran was lying dead and Mst. Rani was still alive, but was unconscious. He asked Ghulam Muhammad to immediately remove the injured Mst, Rani to Kamber dispensary for treatment. He rushed to the bazar to confirm, whether his brother, Muhammad Siddiq was still alive. He reached there and found Muhammad Siddiq lying dead. Thereafter Hamid went to the Kamber Police Station and lodged the report (Exh. 7) at 8-30 a.m. Which reads as under :- "That about 1-1/2 years back my brother Muhammad Siddiq had married his daughter Mst. Ghulam Sughran with Haji son of Rehman by caste Kori rio of Mir Karam Khan Brohi, Taluka Shahadadkot, as his "Ghar Jiwai" in the house. About 3/4 months back, disputes arose between Muhammad Siddiq and Haji. On account of that, Mst. Sughran filed civil suit against her husband Haji for dissolution of marriage. But Nekmard Muhammad Kamil intervened and brought compromise between the parties. After 'Faisla', Haji used to live together with his father-in-law, Muhammad Siddiq as before.
5. After some days, again dispute arose between them.
6. Today in the morning, I was in the house when at about 8 a.m. Ghulam Kori brother-in-law of Muhammad Siddiq came running and informed me that he had gone to meet his sister Rani, in her house, in the morning, and when he reached the staircase, he heard cries coming from the house.
7. He went up stair and saw that Haji Kori had a hatchet in his hand and was given hatchet blows to Mst. Ghulam Sughran and Mst. Rani was lying on the ground. I challenged him not to kill, on which Haji gave 'hake saying not to go near him or else, he also would be killed. Due to fear, he did not go near him (Haji). Again Haji gave hatchet blow on the face of Mst. Rani and went down stairs. He saw that Mst. Ghulam Sughran was dead and Mst. Rani was alive. He followed the accused. Muhammad Ismail Kori met him (Ghulam Kori) in the street, to whom also he had narrated the facts and Muhammad Ismail told him that accused Haji alongwith blood-stained hatchet was running away towards bazar. He (Ghulam Kori) made Muhammad Ismail to sit over the dead body, and he (Ghulam Kori) ran after the accused. Then he (Ghulam Kori) reached at the shop of Ghulam Rasool Sheikh he saw that accused Haji was giving hatchet blows to Muhammad Siddiq. The above incident was seen by neighouring shopkeepers and `Rehri Walas' viz. Muhammad Bux Sheikh, Muhammad Gopang, Shafi Muhammad Gopang and others but due to fear, no body went near the accused. Accused Haji after killing Muhammad Siddiq went towards north raising 'Slogans'.
8. On hearing the above facts I went to the house of my brother Muhammad Siddiq, and saw that Ghulam Sughran was lying dead, on the cot, with injuries on face and other parts of the body, and was bleeding, and Mst. Rani was lying on the ground with injuries on head and face and was alive, and sent her to hospital for treatment. I again went to bazar and saw my brother Muhammad Siddiq, who was lying dead in front of the shop of Ghulam Rasool Sheikh, who had injuries on right side of face and occipital region and was dead and bleeding. I. Made the above witnesses to sit over the dead body and have come here for report. Accused Haji had murdered his wife Mst.
9. Ghulam Sughran, and his father-in-law because of filing of the civil suit, and ill-feeling between them. He had also attempted to commit murder of Mst. Rani, I am complainant. Investigation be made."
4. On the other hand, when the appellant was found with blood-stained hatchet and blood on his clothes and had informed Muhammad Kamil (P. W. 7) about killing his wife and both the in-laws, Muhammad Kamil took him and produced him at the Kamber Police Station before the S. H.0.
10. Hameedullah (P. W. 11). It was about 9 a.m. The S. H.0. Secured the blood-stained hatchet from the appellant, as well as, his turban, shirt and loin-cloth, which were blood-stained. All the articles were sealed under the mashirnama (Exh. 15), in presence of mashir Muhammad Kamil (P. W. 7) and Abdul Qadir. The S. H.0., then proceeded to the dispensary, Kamber, where he found Mst. Rani lying unconscious and was not able to make a statement. From there, he went to Shahi Bazar, Kamber Town, and found the dead body of Muhammad Siddiq lying on the foot-path. There were cut piece of cloth around the deceased, which were also blood-stained, Thereafter the police was led by Hamid Ali (P. W. 2) to the house of deceased Muhammad Siddiq where the dead body of Mst.
11. Sughran was lying on the upper storey of the house. There was blood near the dead body, as well as, other places in the house. The police prepared the necessary mashirnamas.
5. On 10-4-1974 the appellant had volunteered to make a confession. He was accordingly produced in the Court of Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate for recording his confession.
12. After completing the investigation, the case was challaned in the Court on 23-4-1974. The blood- stained articles were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser, Karachi. His report is Exh.
13. 30.
6. In his statement (Exh. 36) in the committal Court, the appellant had admitted that the police had secured blood-stained clothes as well as blood-stained hatchet from his possession. As regards the judicial confession he admitted having given the confession, but stated that it was extorted from him due to police pressure. He had disowned every word of it and stated that he had been tutored to make the same. In answer to the other questions, he had stated that he would explain them in the Court of Session. While in his statement (Exh. 37) in the Court of Session, he had contended that he had asked his wife to go with him, but she had refused and showed him her thumb. He asked her to give him water on which his mother-in-law told his wife to give him urine.
14. He told his wife that she was not going with him because she was on illicit terms with Kalo Hajjam and she had shamelessly admitted to be so, and further said that since he did not give her anything, and Kalo Hajjam had provided her with every thing. He further stated in his statement that he was provoked and therefore caused them both, hatchet injuries. Thereafter, he went and informed his father-in-law, who became very ferocious and abused him, on which he caused him also hatchet injuries. He had further stated that he had no intention to kill any of them. He had denied having made any extra judicial confession to Muhammad Kamil (P. W. 7). As regards the production of the bloodstained clothes, he explained that he had himself produced them before the police. He further admitted that the police had secured blood-stained clothes and blood- stained hatchet from his possession. He also admitted that it may be true that his wife Mst.
15. Sughran had filed a civil suit for dissolution of her marriage against him, and further admitted that P. W. Muhammad Kamil had settled the matter between him, and his father-in-law deceased Muhammad Siddiq, whereafter, he started living with his wife in her father's house. As regards the judicial confession, he had admitted having given one, but under coercion and influence of police, which he said was false. He had prayed for mercy.
7. The prosecution have based their case upon the following pieces of evidence:-
(i) Occular evidence of P. W. 3 Ghulam Muhammad, Shafi Muhammad (P. W. 5) and Muhammad Bux P. W.6.
(ii) Corroboration of the testimony of the eye-witnesses by Hamid P. W. 2 and Muhammad Ismail P.
16. W.4.
(iii) Extra judicial confession to Muhammad Kamil P. W.7.
(iv) Recovery of blood-stained hatchet and clothes.
(v) Judicial confession.
8. The question whether, Mst. Sughran, Mst. Rani and Muhammad Siddiq died an unnatural death on the morning of April 9, 1974, is not disputed. It is, even otherwise satisfactorily proved that all the three had died as a result of the injuries received by them on that day. The evidence of the doctor Nanak Ram, who had performed the post-mortem examination on the three dead bodies, clearly shows that they had incised injuries on their person and all the injuries were ante-mortem and appeared to have been caused by a hatchet. Mst. Sughran had as many as seven incised injuries on her person. Both her parietal bones were found cut and fractured. The brain matter was lacerated on the parietal side. From the external, as well as, internal examination, the doctor was of the opinion that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries found on her dead body. All the injuries appeared to have been caused by a hatchet collectively and were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The death was instantaneous.
17. Mst. Rani had nine incised wounds. From the external, as well as, internal examination of her dead body, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of the hatchet injuries sustained by her. All the injuries collectively were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
18. Muhammad Siddiq had three incised wounds. From the external and interna examination of the dead body, the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries found on his body. Injury No. 1 was an incised wound 6" X 3 X 2i from the right frontal region up to the nose, cutting underline bones and the right eye-ball and was sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. His death was instantaneous. In addition to the evidence of the doctor, there is evidence of eye-witnesses Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 3), Shafi Muhammad (P. W. 5) and Muhammad Bux (P. W. 6) which clearly establishes that Mst. Sughran Mst. Rani and Muhammad Siddiq had died of the injuries received by them.
19. On the point of occular evidence, Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 3) is the first in time, who is the brother of deceased Mst. Rani. On the day of the incident, he had gone to the house of deceased at about 7-30 a.m., in the morning to meet his sister Mst. Rani. When he was on the staircase of the house of deceased Muhammad Siddiq, he heard the cries coming from the house and he rushed upstairs and saw the appellant giving hatchet blows to his wife, Mst. Sughran. The appellant had already caused the injuries to deceased Mst. Rani, who was lying unconscious. When Ghulam Muhammad challenged the appellant, who threatened him that if Ghulam Muhammad intervened, he would kill him. The appellant then left the house. Ghulam Muhammad followed him, to the bazar where he witnessed the appellant causing hatchet injuries to deceased Muhammad Siddiq. His statements seems to have been accepted by the defence, there is almost no cross-examination, except asking what had transpired at the time of incident between the two deceased and the appellant.
20. Next is the evidence of Shafi Muhammad (P. W. 5) who is a Cobbler. He was sitting and doing his business on the foot-path in the bazar of Kamber Town, at about 7-45 a.m. Or 8 a.m. The deceased Muhammad Siddiq was also sitting on the same foot-path, at a distance of only 4 or 5 paces away from him. Shall Muhammad had seen the appellant coming there and attacking the deceased with the hatchet. When he and Muhammad Bux (P. W. 6) tried to intervene, they were threatened to keep away, by the appellant. Same is the evidence of Muhammad Bux, who has a shop there in the bazar and the incident had taken place in front of his shop, The testimony of these two witnesses has also gone almost unchallenged.
21. The version of the three eye-witnesses stands fully corroborated by Hamid (P. W. 2) brother of deceased Muhammad Siddiq, who is the complainant and had lodged the F. I. R. To whom Ghulam Muhammad (P. W. 3) had narrated the details of the occurrence. Nothing has been brought on the record to doubt his statement. Muhammad Ismail (P. W. 4) was also informed by Ghulam Muhammad and was asked to wait in the house of the deceased, where the two women Mst.
22. Sughran and Mst. Rani were lying injured. He was not cross-examined at all.
23. On the point of extra (judicial confession is the statement of Muhammad Kamil (P. W. 7). The appellant had gone to his shop in the bazar of Kamber Town at about 8 or 8-30 a.m. With a blood- stained hatchet in his hand, and having blood on his turban, shirt and loin-cloth and informed him that he had given hatchet blows to his wife, his mother-in-law and his father-in-law. This witness was also not cross-examined at all.
24. When the appellant was taken by Muhammad Kamil (P. W. 7) to the police station and produced before the S. H.
0. Hamidullah (P. W. 11) who had recovered from him the blood-stained hatchet, his turban, shirt and loin cloth, in presence of Muhammad Kamil, who was mashir of the recovery, He was not cross-examined indicating that the defence had not disputed the production and recovery of the blood-stained articles.
25. Lastly is the judicial confession of the appellant before Abdul Ghafoor (P. W. 10) who was the Civil Judge and F. C. M., Kamber, when he recorded the confession on 10-4-1974. The confession is in the following words :- "About 14 months back my marriage was solemnized with Mst. Sughran. After that I lived with her father in their house because I have accepted the condition to stay in the house as "Ghar Jiwai".
26. About 2-1/2 months back dispute arose between us. I was not treated properly. My wife was in the clutches of her father and used to dishonour (disrespect) me, therefore I left the house. After that my wife filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against me at the instance of Mst. Rani her mother and Muhammad Siddiq her father. On hearing this, I was annoyed; but in spite of that I approached that Nekmards and Muhammad Kamil Bhutto intervened and brought compromise between us.
27. According to the compromise I had to pay Rs. 50 per month for house expenses. After that I again stayed in the house of my father-in-law.
28. Day-before-yesterday my dissolution case was fixed. I asked my father-in-law that he should take his daughter to withdraw the suit but he said to wait ill they see my character as to how I was treating them and then the case will be withdrawn. On this I was again annoyed and was thinking as to how I should get rid of them.
29. Yesterday morning when my father-in-law left the house I took a chance and took the hatchet and killed Mst. Rani my mother-in-law and wife Ghulam Sughran by inflicting hatchet blows. In the meanwhile, Ghulam, maternal uncle of my wife came in the house. I challenged him not to come near and ran in haste. At that time my mother-in-law was still alive. From there I alongwith my hatchet went direct to Muhammad Siddiq my father-in-law, where he was selling Puris and old coats. I gave him two hatchet blows and killed him on the spot. Then I alongwith my hatchet went direct to Muhammad Kamil Bhutto and narrated him the facts. He took me from there and brought my at the police station and gave me in the custody of police. This is what I have to say."
30. In view of the statement (Exh. 37) of the appellant in the Court of Session, wherein, he had admitted to have caused the hatchet injuries to all the deceased, there is no reason to disbelieve the confession, which I am satisfied is true and voluntary.
31. ' Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has stressed upon the point of grave and sudden provocation. He has urged before us that the appellant was so much fed up and dishonoured by his wife and his in-laws that the appellant had lost control over himself. He has further argued that the attitude of the mother-in-law and the wife of the appellant was also responsible to have contributed greatly towards reaction of the appellant, who became a victim of grave and sudden provocation, whereby he had completely lost control over himself.
32. Therefore he argued that the sentence awarded against the appellant was liable to be reduced to imprisonment for life. He has placed reliance on Abdul Rehman v. State In that case the two police officers, who were in plain clothes, had gone on two hired bicycles to Shimla Hotel for seeking information regarding bad characters. They were making enquiries from Muhammad Hussain, the complainant, who was a call-boy at the Hotel, when the appellant came and stood behind them.
33. The deceased A. S. I. Asked the appellant as to why he was standing there. The appellant replied that he was waiting for some body. The deceased A. S. I. Then asked him to stand at some distance, but the appellant insisted that he would not shift. There was an exchange of hot words and each told the other not to make `Bakwas' (talk nonsense). At this, it is alleged, the appellant took out a knife from the folds of his shalwar and stabbed the A. S. I. In his stomach. The A. S. I. Fell down but soon got up and started running away from there. After he had gone a short distance, he again fell down near a heap of stones lying on the side of the road. Seeing his A. S. I. Stabbed, the constable Muhammad Siddiq, caught hold of the appellant by his shirt collar, whereupon the appellant caused knife injuries to the constable on his neck and stomach. On receiving injuries Muhammad Siddiq also ran from there and fell down in front of a radio service shop, situated at a distance of about 50 paces from the Dawakhana. In that case the principles laid down in Sardar Ali v. The Crown, was whether it could he justifiably invoked in favour of the appellant and notwithstanding the fact that he did not raise the plea of self-defence during the enquiry or the trial, he could still be found entitled to its benefit in the circumstances of the case. The appellant in that case had the injury on the right arm which was an incised wound " X f" x inadvertently described in the High Court's judgment, as well as, that of my Lord the Chief Justice as 3"x ex 1/4" and whose origin and duration reasonably coincided with the time of occurrence, remained wholly unexplained by the prosecution. Secondly, the two police officers in that case had taken the initiative in picking up the quarrel with the appellant culminating in their death at his hands. In my humble opinion that authority will have no direct bearing in this case. In the first instance none of1 the deceased had even attempted to attack the appellant, nor had caused any assault on him.
34. Secondly that in the instant case there appears to be a pre-arranged plan whereby the appellant was dissatisfied to stay in the house of the deceased Muhammad Siddiq and wanted to do away with the entire family. He took vengeance and killed his own wife and his mother-in-law in one assault and then walked through the bazar and reached the place of his business, where his father-in-law Muhammad Siddiq was selling the old clothes. In the open bazar, the appellant inflicted hatchet injuries on his person and killed him instantaneously. Several other authorities were also cited by Mr. Hayat Junejo in support of his contention, which have been perused by us and in my opinion, the cases decided in those authorities are distinguishable. The principle enunciated on the point of grave and sudden provocation is appreciated in the light of circumstances of each case separately. As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, I find that the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
35. In this case, the appellant, for some time in the past, had decided to finish all the three deceased persons. He took the opportunity on the day of occurrence and killed the two women in their house, and thereafter went in the bazar and killed his father-in-law. There is no cross-examination of A the material witnesses to substantiate the point of grave and sudden provocation in favour of the appellant, nor there are other circumstances, in the evidence available to persuade us to believe that the appellant had acted under grave and sudden provocation.
36. I, therefore, find no merit in the appeal which is hereby dismissed. The death sentence awarded to the appellant is confirmed.
37. AGHA ALI HYDER, J.-I agree. PLD 1975 SC 275