Instant appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 3-7-1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha whereby he convicted the appellant under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to life imprisonment. He further directed him to pay Rs,30,000 as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. And in default thereof to undergo further R.I. For six months. However, benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Muhammad Inayat complainant (P.W.7) is a resident of Chak No,9/MLC and runs a hotel there. He was married with Mst. Kaneez Fatima (since deceased) about 28/30 years. He has got six sons and one daughter out of his said wedlock. The accused Sajid-ur- Rehman son of Abdul Razzaq demanded the hand of his daughter Iram which request was not acceded by them. The wife of complainant had been suffering from headache. On 10-6-1996 Sajid- ur-Rehman visited his house early in the morning and told his wife that he would take her to a Peer in Chak No,20 North for securing Taviz for her ailment. Accordingly Sajid-ur-Rehman alongwith (P.W.7) complainant his son Javed Iqbal (P.W.8) anti his wife Mst. Kaneez Fatima left for Chak No,20 North. At about 11-00 a.m. While the accused Sajid-ur-Rehman and his wife Mst. Kaneez Fatima were going a few paces ahead of them, Sajid-ur-Rehman caught hold of his wife from her hair and pushed her in Lower Jhelum Canal. Mst. Kaneez Fatima raised alarm for saving her life upon which he with his son Javed Iqbal rushed and seeing them coming the accused Sajid-ur-Rehman fled away from the spot. As the water was deep in the canal, so none of them could save his wife who consequently drowned in the water. The motive behind this occurrence is the refusal to accede the request of the accused as well as his brother Irfan to give the hand of Mst. Iram for the accused Sajid-ur-Rehman.
3. On 10-6-1996 Muhammad Qasim, S.-I. (P.W.10) was posted as S.H.O. Police Station Bhalwal. On the statement of Muhammad Inayat (P.W.7) he recorded F.I.R. Exh.P.K. He made for the place of occurrence, searched the dead body, recorded the statements of the witnesses. After half an hour of his arrival at the spot the dead body started floating in the water which was taken out of water.
He prepared statement of injury Exh. P. E. And inquest report Exh. P. F. And handed over the dead body to Imiiaz Ahmad H.C. For autopsy. He also prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence Exh.P.C. On 11-6-1996 Imtiaz Ahmad H.C. Produced last-worn clothes of the deceased P.1 to P.2 which he secured vide memo. Exh.P.A. On 16-6-1996 he got the site inspected through Patwari who on 28- 6-1996 handed over site plans Exhs.P.C. And P.C./1 which contained his notes in red ink. On 14-6- 1996 he arrested accused Irfan. On 27-6-1996 he arrested accused Sajid-urRehman. He moved an application for getting Irfan discharged but the said application was disallowed hence he submitted the challan against both the accused.
4. In order to bring home guilt to the accused prosecution examined Sajjad Ahmad H.C. P.W.1, Habib Ullah H.C. P.W.2, Muhammad Khan, Constable P.W.3, Imtiaz Ahmad, Constable P.W.4, Muhammad Inayat Patwari P.W.5, Dr. Muhammad Ali P.W.6, Muhammad Inayat complainant P.W.7, Javed Iqbal P.W.8, Muhammad Nazir P.W.9, Muhammad Qasim, S.-I. P.W.10, thereafter the learned D.D.A.
Produced reports of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.G. And Exh.P.H. And closed prosecution evidence.
5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The accused Sajid-urRehman denied the prosecution version and in reply to Question No,10 stated as follows:-- "I am innocent. The real fact is that Mst. Kaniz Fatima had domestic and family dispute with Muhammad Inayat complainant. She left her house out of frustration and it was a talk of the village that she faced the death in mysterious way. His dead body was lying unidentified at T.H.Q. Hospital, Bhalwal. Announcement was made in mosque of village and surrounding villages, that unidentified dead body of a woman is lying in the hospital. The complainant party owe and was defaulter of Rs,12,000 for taking eatables from onr shop. I had altercation with Muhammad Inayat complainant for the payment of abovesaid money. In addition to it, my real Khalazad Shahabadud-Din had lodged F.I.R. Against Muhammad Nazir son of Ismaeel P.W. In Anti-Corruption Department. I was also persuading that case. Muhammad Inayat complainant is henchman of Mehar Ahmad Khan M.P.A. While I and my'family opposed abovesaid M.P.A. In the recent past election. Ihad an Ehata contiguous to the house of complainant. Complainant asked me 20 feet lands from the abovesaid Ehata and I refused to accede his request for all this, complainant had enmity and grudge against my family. The complainant got me challaned under the influence of Mehar Ahmad Khan our sitting M.P.A."
' The accused Muhammad Irfan also denied the prosecution version and stated that he had been implicated in this case and also relied upon the statement of his co-accused Sajid-ur-Rehman.
6. After going through the evidence produced by the prosecution, the trial Court while acquitting Irfan convicted the accused/appellant vide judgment under appeal.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. The stand of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no memo. Of recovery of dead body has been prepared in the instant case, that similarly no memo. Of the place from where the dead body was recovered has been prepared, that prosecution evidence mainly consists upon the statements of Muhammad Inayat complainant (P.W.7) and Javed Iqbal (P.W.8), who are father and son inter se as such their statements cannot be relied upon in absence of any independent evidence which is lacking in the instant case. He thus submitted that prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
9. Conversely impugned judgment has been supported by the learned counsel for the State.
10. According to the prosecution version the complainant Muhammad Inayat (P.W.7) and Javed Iqbal P.W.8 were following the accused/appellant who was going ahead of them alongwith the deceased at the time of occurrence. It has come on record through the statements of P.Ws.7 and 8 that accused/appellant Sajid-ur-Rehman caught hold of the deceased Mst. Kaniz Fatima from her hair and then threw her in the canal. The occurrence took place at about 11-00 a.m. Whereas report has been lodged at 1-30 p.m. The incident has been witnessed by the complainant as well as by his son who were accompanying the accused as well as the deceased at the relevant time. Both the complainant (P.W.7) and Javed Iqbal (P.W.8) have corroborated prosecution version. Both of them were subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant but without any success. It is also fact that after the registration of case, the Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and secured the dead body of Mst. Kaniz Fatima which was brought out of said canal. The memo. Exh.PL. To this effect is available on record. The dead body was subjected to autopsy conducted by Dr. Muhammad Ali (P.W.6) who has also deposed that death of the deceased was due to asphyxia caused by drowning. Thus even medical evidence corroborates the ocular account furnished by the complainant P.W.7 and Javed Iqbal P.W.B. It is thus clear that prosecution version stands corroborated not only by oral evidence but also by the medical evidence.
11. For what has been stated above, it is proved that the impugned judgment has been passed in accordance with law and it does not call for any interference. Consequently appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.