' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The appellant Sharafat Ali son of Ibrahim was tried by an Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore on a charge under sectoin 302, P.P.C. For having committed the murder of Mst.
Safia Sultana deceased. Vide judgment dated 20-4-1991 the learned Additional Sessions Judge found appellant guilty of the said charge and thus the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs,50,000 or in default thereof to suffer R.I. For a term of 5 years. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further directed that in the event of recovery of fine, Rs,45,000 out of it shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C.
The case was referred to the High Court under section 374, Cr.P.C., while the appellant assailed his conviction through an appeal. The complainant also filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of the compensation. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal as well as the revision aforesaid and the reference was answered in the affirmative and death sentence was, thus, confirmed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Lahore High Court, the appellant filed a petition in this Court seeking leave to appeal against the said judgment. Vide order dated 27-1-1998 this Court after thoroughly discussing the merits of, the case as well as the evidence on record, declined to interfere, but the I leave was granted to consider the quantum of sentence awarded to the ppellant.
2. The unfortunately occurrence resulting into the death of Mst. Safia Sultana took place on 12-6- 1989 at 2-30 p. m. In her house bearing No,7-G, Model Town, Lahore at a distance of 2 kilometers from the Police Station Model Town, Lahore. The first informant Abdul Sattar Malik, an eye-witness of the occurrence, after having captured the appellant with the help of Muhammad Salim, proceeded to lodge the F.I.R. When on his way to the police station, he met the S.H.O., Police Station Model Town, who recorded his statement at 3-30 p.m. Near the Divisional Public School, Model Town, Lahore and sent the same to the police station for registration of the case. At the police station, formal F.I.R. Was drawn by Nazir Ahmad at 3-45 p.m.
3. In brief, the first informant stated in the F.I.R. That he was resident of 7-Q Block, Model Town, Lahore while the place of occurrence-7-G, Model Town belonged to his in-laws where the deceased Mst. Safia Sultana, sister of his wife was residing. According to the first informant, on the day of occurrence, at about 2-30 p.m., he and his wife, Mst. Shamim and his brother Muhammad Saleem visited the house of Mst. Safia Sultana deceased. It was further stated by the first informant that as soon as they entered the house and reached the central room, they saw that in the attached bathroom of bedroom of Mst. Safia Sultana, the appellant after having felled down the deceased, was slaughtering her. The complainant and his companions heard the cries of the deceased and as soon as they tried to stop the appellant, the appellant tried to escape, but the complainant and Muhammad Saleem captured the appellant at the spot alongwith the bloodstained Churri. Another blood-stained Churri was also lying at the spot. The deceased had received injuries on the front side and backside of her neck, face and left arm. Mst. Safia Sultana succumbed to her injuries at the spot. The appellant was employed as a Chowkidar in a college and after the duty hours, he used to work for the deceased and used to live in the servant quarters of the house of Mst. Safia deceased. The first informant also stated that the appellant, after his capture, informed him that 2 years before the occurrence on the recommendation of Mst. Safia Sultana, he had lent an amount of Rs,9,000 to one Ishaq Gujjar on profit basis. Ishaq Gujjar was not returning the loan and the appellant considered the deceased as responsible for the loss and thus on the said grouse, he had killed the deceased on the day of occurrence.
4. Dr. Rana Liaqat Ali, Medical Officer, Surgeon Medico-Legal Office, Lahore, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Safia Sultana and the following injuries were noticed:--
(1) Superficial incised wound 5.5 X 2.0 c.m. On left forehead extending to left eyebrow 1.0 c.m. From mid line.
(2) Incised wound 2.0 X .7 c.m. On right forehead lateral to eyebrow 1.0 c.m. From outer angle of eye 3.5 c.m. In front of right ear.
(3) Incised wound 1.5. x.
0.5 c.m. On right upper cheek just below right eyelid.
(4) Incised wound 1.5 x 0.5 c.m. On frenlum of nose.
(5) Incised wound on top of scalp 3.0 x.
0.8 c.m.
8.0 c.m. From right ear.
(6) Incised wound 9.5 x 1.5 c.m. On righ lower jaw extending to right lower lip.
(7) Incised wound 4.0 x.
0.3 c.m. On left lower jaw, 1.5 cm below angle of mouth.
(8) Incised wound 5 x 0.5 c.m. On left lower jaw 1.0 c.m. Below injury No,7.
(9) Multiple abrasions in an area of 7.0 x.
4.0 c.m. On/under surface of chin.
(10) Incised wound 19.0 x 3.0 c.m. On front and both sides of neck, wound tailing towards right.
Wound lies 6.0 c.m. Below chin, 7.0 c.m. Above supera sternal notch, 4.0 c.m. Below right ear, 6.0 c.m. Below left ear.
(11) Incised wound 4.0 x 0.8 c.m. On right ear causing almost detachment of lobule of ear.
(12) Incised wound 4.5 x 0.3 c.m. On back of neck, 7.0 c.m. Above nape of neck.
(13) Incised wound 8.0 x 2.0 c.m. On back of neck, 4.0 c.m. Above nape of neck, 5.0 below ociput.
(14) Bruise 5 x 5 c.m. On back of right shoulder.
(15) Abrasion 3.0 x 0.5 c.m. On top of left shoulder.
(16) Multiple incised wounds (defence wounds) in an; area of 10.0 x 4.0 c.m. On dorsolateral surface of right hand.
(17) Multiple incised wounds (defence wounds) on palmer aspect of all fingers of left hand at mid phlangean level.
(18) Incised wound 5.0 x 1.0 c.m. On medical surface of right forearm, 10 c.m. From right elbow, 13.0 c.m. Above wrist-joint.
(19) Incised wound 7 x 1.0 c.m. On back of left hand extending to back of left middle finger proximal phalanx.
(20) Incised wound 5 x 2.0 c.m. On lateral surface of left wrist-joint.
(21) Multiple superficial incised wounds in an area of 2 x 1.0 c.m. On palmer aspect of left index and ring fingers, middle and distal phalanx.
' In the opinion of he doctor, injuries Nos. 9, 14 and 15 were caused by a blunt weapon while the remaining injuries were caused by a sharp-edged weapon. Death occurred due to injury No,10, which caused damage to the major vessel of the neck leading to haemorrhage and shock. Injury No,10 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On 12-6-1989, P.W.11 Dr. Zafar Iqbal medically examined the appellant and following injuries were observed:--
(1) Incised wound 0.8 x 0.2 c.m. x skin deep on back base of left ring finger (well made).
(2) A well-made incised wound 0.8 x 0.2 x skin deep on lower back of left little finger.
(3) A well-made incised wound 1.3 x 0.2 c.m. x skin deep on upper back left little finger.
(4) Abrasion 1.5 x 0.2 c.m. On back base of left index finger.
(5) Abrasion 0.5 x 0.3 c.m. On outer left index finger.
(6) Abrasion 1 x 0.2 c.m. On front tip of right index finger.
' The Investigating Officer after reaching the spot, took into possession the bloodstained Churri, which was snatched from the appellant. Another blood-stained Churri lying on the floor of the bathroom was also taken into possession. The clothes of the appellant were also found to be blood-stained, and thus, his shirt, Shalwar and slippers which he was wearing, were also taken into possession.
5. To prove its case at the trial, the prosecution placed reliance upon the ocular testimony furnished by the first informant P.W.6 and Muhammad Saleem P.W.7. In addition to the ocular testimony, the prosecution also placed reliance upon the recoveries.
6. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied that he was living in the servant quarter of the bungalow of the deceased. He also denied that he used to do personal work of the deceased. However, he admitted that he was employed in a college at Lahore. When asked as to why he had been involved in this case, he made the following reply:-- "The eye-witnesses and the recovery witnesses were interested in usurping the share of the bungalow of the deceased and, in fact, they had committed the murder of Mst. Safia Sultana and involved me without any reasons. The case against me is false. No independent witness has been examined against me."
' The appellant appeared in the witness-box and made a statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C., and produced Muhammad Khan D.W.1 and Muhammad Ashiq D.W.2 in his defence. While examining himself on oath, the appellant stated that he was serving as a Chowkidar in Polytechnic College, Lahore of which Mrs. Nusrat Shafiq, sister of the deceased was the Principal. The appellant further stated that on the day of the occurrence, he was on duty in the said college from 7-00 a.m.
To 4-00 p.m., and on the day of occurrence at about 4-00 p.m., Mrs. Nusrat Shafiq, who was also living with the deceased, rang him and asked him to come to her bungalow, i.e,, the place of occurrence. On reaching the bungalow, the appellant found police and many others including Mrs. Nusrat Shafiq, Mrs. Shamim Sattar (given up P.W) already present there. The appellant further stated that on reaching the bungalow, he came to know about the murder of Mst. Safia Sultana whose dead body was lying in the bungalow. He further stated that the first informant was present, who named one Ishaq Gujjar as the murderer of the deceased, but later, his name was dropped in lieu of Rs,2,50,000 which the complainant received from Ishaq Gujjar. The appellant further stated that thereafter he was named as killer of the, deceased whereupon he was arrested. He denied to have ever lived in the servant quarter of the bungalow of the deceased and stated that he was residing in the college premises, 7 miles from the place of occurrence. D.W.1 Muhammad Khan stated that his son Muhammad Ishaq was wanted by the police for the murder of Mst. Safia Sultana, but a compromise took place between him and the first informant and other relatives of the deceased and Muhammad Ishaq was thus found to be innocent and in this process he had to pay Rs,2,00,000 to the first informant and Rs,20,000 were given to the police. D.W.2 Muhammad .
Ashiq, Head Clerk of the college stated that the appellant was employed as a shop attendant in the said Institute and the attendance register of the menial staff revealed that the appellant had attended the Institute on the date of occurrence and was marked present. However, he had left the college without permission at about 10-00 a.m., as per written report of the Chowkidar of the Institute. The witness further stated that a note was given in the relevant entry about the departure of the appellant at 10-00 a.m. Without permission. The witness further stated that Mrs. Nursrat Shafiq, the Principal of the Institute was not in Lahore on the date of occurrence as she had gone to Karachi. The witness further stated that the college was closed on account of summer vacation, but the office remained open and the menial staff used to attend to duties. He further stated that in the month of June, 1989 the office hours were from 7-30 a.m. To 2-00 p.m.
7. We have carefully perused the entire evidence on record and we have. Also juxtaposed the defence plea with the prosecution case. The ocular testimony in this case has been furnished by Abdus Sattar Malik, the first Informant, husband of the sister of the deceased and his brother Muhammad Saleem. It was urged before us that they are interested witnesses and being close relatives of the deceased, their testimony cannot be believed. No doubt, they are related, but mere relationship is no basis to discard their evidence. Furthermore, by no stretch of imagination they can be considered to be interested witnesses. An interested witness, as laid down by this Court on a number of occasions and particularly in the case of Niaz v. The State (PLD 1960 SC 38), is a person, who has a motive to falsely implicate a person. Considering the testimony of these two eye-witnesses on the touchstone of the aforesaid criteria, we do not find that their testimony is tainted or they had any motive to falsely implicate the appellant nor any enmity worth the name has been brought on record to show that they were implicating the appellant in this case falsely.
Furthermore, the' appellant was a shop attendant/Chowkidar working in the college of which the Principal was the real sister of the deceased, and thus, there can heardly be any enmity between the appellant and the eye-witnesses. On the other hand, we are of the view that out of compassion, the appellant had been accommodated by the Principal and the deceased both real sisters in the servant quarer of their house so as to solve problem of his accommodation. No doubt he used to do some work in the house of the deceased, but the appellant being ungrateful committed the murder of his own benefactor. As far as motive in this case is concerned, there was hardly any reason for the first informant to fabricate the motive of the case as disclosed to him by the appellant after he was captured. Such statement of the appellant is a relevant fact because it was made soon after the commission of crime and his capture. We are not prepared to believe that a prompt F.I.R., the narration of the motive as disclosed by the appellant would have been fabricated and could be a brainchild of the first informant. The learned Judges of the High Court, however, took another view to the effect that on a summer day when the deceased was all alone in the houses, the appellant might have tried to commit rape with her and on resistance he tried to kill firstly with a knife and when he could not accomplish his object and with a view to save himself from the consequences in case of survival of the deceased, he killed her with another knife. Be that as it may, we will refrain to comment on this part of the reasoning advanced by the learned Judges in the High Court, but we are of the view that the motive part of the prosecution case as narrated by the first informant while lodging a prompt F.I.R. Rings true as the same was disclosed to him by the appellant that since on the responsibility of the deceased, he had parted with Rs,9,000 by advancing the same on profit basis to Ishaq Gujjar and had lost the said amount. Of course for a person like the appellant, this was not a meagre amount and we are of the view that this was the grouse on the basis of which he killed the deceased. Although the eye-witnesses are not interested, but the prosecution has further brought corroborative evidence in the form of the recovery of blood-stained Churris and the clothes worn by the appellant, which were found to be stained with human blood and such evidence lends ample strength to the prosecution case and thus it is not possible to brush aside the prosecution version in any manner.
8. Adverting to the defence version, it is nothing but a cock and bull story and cannot at all be believed. We are not prepared to believe that the relations of the deceased had murdered her to usurp the share of her property in Bungalow No,7-G, Model Town. The first informant accompanied by his wife and brother, living in a separate house in Q-Block of the Model Town, on the day of occurrence, visited the house of the deceased where they saw the tragic occurrence. The appellant himself admitted presence of the first informant and his wife, sister of the deceased at the spot soon after the occurrence. This circumstance goes a long way to falsify the defence version. The appellant was himself medically examined and could not explain the injuries received by him on his fingers. It is, thus, abundantly clear that while launching the attack, he also received these injuries because the first Churn which he used was not sharp enough and its blade could not stay straight whereupon the appellant used another Churn to accomplish his object. In view of this background, we are of the view that it was most callous and brutal murder and therefore the appellant hardly deserves any leniency. No mitigating circumstances exist on record so as to justify the award of lesser punishment to the appellant. Resultantly this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.