This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.1211 of 2000 filed by Abdul Majid, appellant who was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to imprisonment for life with further direction to pay Rs.50,000 as compensation, in default S.I. For one month with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. By learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur vide judgment dated 13-7-2000.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Salma Bibi, niece of Munir Ahmad, complainant was married with Muhammad Ashraf 12 years prior to the occurrence. Out of the wedlock, two sons and one daughter had born. Muhammad Ashraf shifted his residence to Salamatpura, Raja Jang. Abdul Majid, the elder brother of Munir Ahmad had been asking Salma Bibi that she had done some act of Jadoo Toona upon his were as a result of which were of Abdul Majid had not given birth to any child. Few days prior to the occurrence Salma Bibi told that Abdul Majid had threatened Salina Bibi to murder her. On 18-11-1997, the complainant received information that Abdul Majid had come here so he alongwith his son Shabbir and brother Muhammad Boota went to Salamatpura at 2-00 p.m. To make Abdul Majid understand. They saw the outer door of house of Muhammad Ashraf opened and Abdul Majid was giving brick blows to Mst. Salina who was lying on the ground that a blood-stained hatchet was also lying there. On the hue and cry of the complainant and his accomplices, Abdul Majid stood up while stating that he had taught a lesson for doing act of Jadoo Tooda and fled away from the spot along with hatchet. Mst. Salma Bibi succumbed to injuries at the spot.
3. Investigation of the case was taken over by Muhammad Boota, S.-I. (P.W.11). He went to the place of occurrence where the dead body of Mst. Salma was lying, prepared injury statement Exh.P.K., inquest report Exh.P.J., also prepared site-plan Exh.P.K. Took into possession the blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.C.; nine teethes were also secured vide memo. Exh.P.D.; one blood--stained brick was also taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.E. And arrested accused Abdul Majid on 23-11- 1997. While in custody, the accused on 28-11-1997, got recovered hatchet P.1 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.A. After completion of the investigation, the accused was challaned to face the trial.
4. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 11 witnesses in all. Then the learned A.D.A. Tendered in evidence reports of the Chemical Examiner Exhs.P.N., P.O., report of the Serologist Exh.P.P. And closed the case of prosecution. After that; statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he pleaded not guilty. However, after conclusion of the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. In support of this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was an un witnessed occurrence, that natural witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution, that both the eye- witnesses are father and son inter se while the complainant is real uncle of the deceased, that Muhammad Ashraf P.W.2 had stated during cross-- examination that Shabbir had bad eyes on his were, that eye-witnesses were not resident of the place of occurrence but some other place, that they are chance witnesses and there is no corroboration to the statements of those witnesses, that doctor had taken the swa bs from the vagina of the deceased but the report had been concealed by the Investigating Officer for some ulterior motive and that prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that appellant is the only accused in this case; that ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence. He supports the judgment of the learned trial Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at a great length and have also gone through the evidence on record very minutely. In the instant case, occurrence had taken place on 18-11-1997 at 2-00 p.m. Matter was reported to the police on the same day at 3-45 p.m. At Chowk Mir Muhammad Raiwind Road while the formal F.I.R. Was recorded on the same day at 4/5-00 p.m.
Appellant is the only accused in this case." There are 12 injuries on the person of the deceased and deceased was "Bhabhi" of the appellant and he had committed the murder of the deceased in a very brutal manner. Though eye-witnesses are related to the deceased but there is no animus whatsoever between, the parties. There was no question of substitution because substitution is a rare phenomenon. Ocular account is fully corroborated by medical evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my intention to the statement of Muhammad Ashraf P.W.2 husband of the deceased, he was witness of identification of dead body of the deceased because he is real brother of the appellant, so he gave concession to the learned defence counsel during cross- examination, although those questions have got no relevancy with his statement and the same were objected by learned counsel for the complainant Had Muhammad Ashraf P.W. Was present at the spot and according to learned counsel it was Shabbir P.W (eye-witness) who committed the murder of the deceased, he must have registered the case against Shabbir. He did not make any application to the higher Police Officials, that present appellant is not his accused, he even not made any application to any other forum for the redressal of his grievance that it was Shabbir who was the murderer of his were. Already a very lenient view has been taken by the learned trial Court on the ground that the eye-witnesses were related and not natural one, although in the same paragraph he had stated that ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence and the prosecution had by to prove its case against the appellant. In fact, the reason for lesser sentence is that prosecution failed to prove the motive and motive was that appellant had no child and the deceased use to do "Jadoo Toona" on the were of the appellant but Muhammad Ashraf P. W.2 real brother of the appellant and husband of Salma deceased during cross-- examination stated that appellant has got 4/5 children, so this can be, mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant to the effect that prosecution failed to prove the motive and to my mind, motive is shrouded in mystery.
8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence on record.
I am. Fully convinced that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. The conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant is maintained in toto.