' This appeal has been, directed against the judgment, dated 9-12-1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha, by which he has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprionment ' for life under section 302, P.P.C. He has also been tined Rs,20,000, in default Whereof he shall further undergo two years. He is also directed to pay a fine of Rs,20,000 as compensation which would go to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Iqbal made a statement and an F,I.R .Exh.P.F at Police StatiOnv Sillanwali was recorded in which he stated that he was married to Mst. Shakooran Bibi about 15/16 years ago and two daughters were born out of the wed-lock. Muhammad Iqbal and Bashir Ahmad father of Abdul Razzaq are real brothers. They had a common passage to their residences whereas Saghir and Manzoor other two brothers are residing separately. It was disclosed in the F.L.R. That the children and women of the houses, used to quarrel with each other' at the time:of house of common Haveli. The complainant stated that he wanted to 'raise- a wall between the Haveli and an.-altercation, took place on' this issue and Bashir Ahmad and his son Abdul Razzaq acataed quarrelled with Mst..Shakooran' wife of the complainant and This children,- 3: On 27-6-1996 at about 6-30 p.m the complainant claimed that he was present in his house alongwith Abdul Shakoor and Mtitiammad Dio who had come down to-.Spc theni. Razzaq accuaed and Mst. Shakoprap, deceased wife of Muhammad Iqbal, complainant, exchanged.Hot words-with ach .9Jher On which Mst. Shakoortur Bibi :stated that:,they have; decided to, raise a wall which will divide the house, !otrAvhich Abdul Razzaq threw a challenge to Mst. Shakooran thafaheivatild be taught a lesson. He went to his 'honk-and 'retUrned with a churri. Razzaq aPPellant shouted a lalkara that he would send them to Hell before raising the wall, he landed his churri blow' hitting on the right side betWeen the shoulder and neck of Mst. Shakooran, who raised alaram; at which Miihatimiad Iqbal complainant, Mnhammaci Din and Abdul Shakoor attempted to apprehend Ahaiil.Razzacf:but he tied away from the sPOt'..Msf:"S iakdoran died at e spot.
4. The motive, as alleged in the F.I.R, 'was that due 'th chtubined residence and the pre'vio'us enmity betWei' n Mst. Shakooran and her Children with' itaiiaq on the use of {{BLUR PAGE}} one houae and the house of the complainant The children of the deceased and . The complainant were away from their house to watch a drama on T.V. In the house of someone else. They were sent out by the deceased intentionally to avail an opportunity of meeting, with Wali Muhammad inside their room on a cot. Untortunately, at the relevant time I arrived from outside in the house and smell the presence of Wali Muhammad aforesaid inside the b:75 n. Room of Muhammad Iqbal vo.;a11:4-,. Complainant. I entered into that room h" and saw that sWali Muhammad ,o aforesaid and ,Mst. Shakooran Bibi were lying on cot in compromising position. Out of Ghariat and sudden provocation, I could not control t'a'ds b clityself and picked up churn lying i1.01rth nearby the room, and tried to commit le^ assault upon Wail .Muhammad but he escaped! And ran, away and the blow of thurri >landed instead on the neck co of Shakooran Bibi. I had no rs ottri viritention to kill her so I did not give Nrrii,inifyi any second blow to her. I made this statement before the Investigating mcnit, Officer on 28-64996 on my.Tarrest but he did not record my statement )11:,4t.f in , league With the complainant. Churri P.4 was .Never got recovered .1 Icnittirom me. Investigating Officer xrit1,...Ta :forged the version of this occurrence and it did not happen as such as alleged by the prosecution.
15811: 'AT Even otherwise,. At the time of this tti tr I occurrence I wastaged about 16 years and 3-1/2 months only -and at present time, about seventeen yearstand nine .Tnonths. Am tentitled. To the benefit of sections 307 and 308,1P.P,C, I {{BLUR PAGE}}Ii' Abdal Razaq v. State 697 (Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry, J) ei;rtitnott..:.: Passage and the intention of 'e,MSt.Shatooran = raising a. Wall, CallSed a grudge, which resulted-into this murder. The case was registered on the '..s,tatement of the .Complaiwt, .Elch Pi at Police Station Sillanwali After .:theJegistration of the case P.W. 1Q; Abdul Salt.Ar,...Lpspeetor/S.11.Q. Visited the spot, took into sipn the blood stainedearth,. Got Trepared to5,, site-Plan EA. P.1-1 4ftd Exh .p.11/ 1 . Lie attested the accused and lot recovered blood- stained churri,,Exh. P.4. On g-7-I996. After the completion of the investigation,, the challan was submitted in the Court of , learned Sessions Judge; Sargodha. The learned Sessions, Judge Sargodha framed the charge which was denied by the accused and he claimed to be tried. The prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused, produced 10 witnesses.. The-ocular account consists of the staternents of Muhammad lqbal complainant ,PW..7 ,and Abdul Shalcoor P. W.. 8 Muhammad lqbal complainant is the,real..Kuncrle: of the appellant ,while Abdul Shalcoor, eye-witness is the btother of the deceased. They, have supported ,prosecution version. The ,Investigating icerr.,Abdul. Sattar appeared as p.w.Jf After the completion of the prosecution evidence the accused made a ,statement ,under sectioti:342,c.r.P.c, in which he denied die a1legati4,: *Ira .Question put to him do you want, to .Soyloartything else, he made the following stateinein "1 am innocent. Mst. -Shakodran 13ibir Was carrying on relations With ofie'Woli Muhammad Khokhar ltv rig in vicinity of diiti hbuse, ab844 which, I had warned my father and Muhammad lqbal her huSband earlier. On the fateftd timer at 'about 7-30 p.m. Darkness had prevailed. 'There was no electricitY ill produce copy of school leaving certificate Exh.D.B. (under objection).
' He did not opt to appear in his defence under section 340, Cr.P.0 but he produced the defence evidence to prove that his date of birth is 10-3-1980 as per school record and closed the defence evidence. After hearing both the parties, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused and passed the sentence abovementioned.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the ocular account is related interse and they had made the contradictory statements and there are improvements in their statements which are not worthy of reliance. The recovery, according to learned counsel for the appellant, is also of no help to the prosecution. He has further contended that the appellant has taken specific stand that the deceased had illicit relations with Wali Muhammad Khokhar and when the complainant and his children had gone to see T.V. And nobody was in the house, Wali Muhammad entered in the house of the deceased and said Wali Muhammad when was seen by the appellant in compromising position, he (appellant attacked on Wali Muhammad but Wali Muhammad slipped away and the churri blow landed on the deceased. The dead body was lying on the cot and this version is supported by this fact. He has further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellant.
7. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has contended that the prosecution witnesses are worthy of reliance and are independent having no enmity with the appellant. The prosecution has stood on its own legs and the judgment is maintainable.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The prosecution in this case has produced two eye-witnesses. P.W.7, Muhammad Iqbal is the husband of the deceased, who is real uncle of the appellant. He has no motive to falsely implicate the appellant in the case in hand. Though he is a natural witness as he was present in his house where the occurrence took place. The presence of the appellant at the time of occurrence has been established and as a natural witness has no or motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. Similarly Abdul Shakoor though is the brother of the deceased and is resident of another village but he was explained his presence at the spot i.e, residence of his real sister and that he was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination but his statement could not be shaken. The appellant himself has admitted the occurrence but has stated that he had attacked on Wali Muhammad who was in a compromising position with the deceased and he tried to kill Wali Muhammad under grave and sudden provocation but this version was not recorded by him when he made first statement before the Investigating Officer as the Investigating Officer (P.W.10) has denied that he took the stand that he had murdered the deceased when she was in a compromising position with the appellant. The appellant did not come forward immediately after the occurrence and did not approach the police that the occurrence has taken place in such a manner and he has caused the injury under grave and sudden provocation. The defence plea seems to be afterthought. It is also not believable that the real uncle has involved his nephew in a case who under grave and sudden provocation has committed the murder of his wife who allegedly was of bad character. No evidence has been brought on the record about the character of the deceased. From the perusal of the statements of the witnesses it has not been proved that she was of bad character and she had four children from the complainant and the children were of different ages. The complainant had denied such allegations. As both the eye-witnesses are related with the appellant and the deceased, hence their statements cannot be brushed aside on mere conjectures and surmises.
Admittedly they are not interested witnesses as they are related inter se but they are not inimical to the appellant. This is not a case of substitution. The blood-stained Toka was recovered from the accused. Report of Chemical Examiner and that of Serologist Exhs. P.1 and P.J are positive. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to bring out any contradictions in the statements of eye- witnesses. The eyewitnesses had not made any improvements on the major points. The presence of the eyewitnesses has been found to be natural. The ocular account is trustworthy and confidence inspiring which is also supported by the recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant. On the other hand the version of the defence that the deceased was carrying on illicit relations with someone is not borne out from the record. The defence has also failed to produce any evidence in support of its version. Even the appellant himself did not appear under section 340, Cr.P.0 to prove his defence version. Even otherwise the defence version is not plausible and is not forthcoming from the evidence on record. This defence was not taken immediately 'after his arrest.
There is nothing on the record that during the investigation this version was stated by the appellant before the Investigating Officer or before the higher officials by tiling applications. The defence version is afterthought and seems to have been cooked up to save his skin.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, in the absence of any cogent reasons, the prosecution case has been proved against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. The sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge Sargodha is maintained and this appeal has no merit and is dismissed.