By this judgment Criminal Appeal No.432 of 2000 and Criminal Revision No.239 of 2000 are being disposed of together which have emerged from the judgment passed by Mr. Muhammad Mehmood Chaudhry, Judge Special Court (STA), Khushab, dated 11-2-2000, whereby in a case bearing F.I.R. No.21, dated 20-4-1999, registered under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, with Police Station Jaura Kalan, Manzoor Hussain appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows:-- Under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code to suffer imprisonment for life.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that Mst. Farhat Bibi, daughter of Muhammad Abid; and sister of the complainant Nasir Khan was married with Manzoor Hussain, (appellant). She gave birth to two daughters (minors) out of Manzoor Hussain. Manzoor Hussain was vagabond who mostly remained absent from his house and had developed illicit relations with women of bad character. He was not paying the maintenance to his were. The parents of Mst. Farhat Bibi had been helping her by the commodities and cash in order to maintain the house. In these circumstances Mst. Farhat Bibi and Manzoor Hussain had developed sti:ained relations. Instead of paying the maintenance to Mst. Farhat Bibi Manzoor Hussain had been demanding money from Mst. Farhat Bibi. About three days earlier to the alleged incident Manzoor Hussain demanded some money from Mst. Farhat Bibi. When his demand could not be fulfilled, he turned out Mst. Farhat Bibi from the house. Mst. Farhat Bibi came to the house of Nasir Khan. On 20-4-1999 at about 10 a.m. In village Khatowal, Nasir Khan along with Ghulam Qadir (uncle) and Tariq Khan son of Ghulam Qadir cousin was present in the house while Farhat Bibi was standing in the courtyard, suddenly Manzoor Hussain armed with pistol .30 bore came there and while raising Lalkara he fired with the pistol thrice which hit to Mst. Farhat Bibi on the right wrist, right side of chest and right side of abdomen, consequently she died at the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by Ghulam Qadir and Tariq Khan besides Nasir Khan. Manzoor Hussain while brandishing the weapon fled away from the spot. The motive behind the occurrence was that Manzoor Hussain was a vagabond and Nasir Khan complainant had been supporting the deceased sister, but due to the attitude of Manzoor Hussain he stopped paying the maintenance, so being annoyed Manzoor Hussain, intentionally committed the Qatl of his were Mst. Farhat Bibi. Nasir Khan complainant arrived at the Police Station, Jaura Kalan at 2-00 p.m. On the same day, the F.I.R. Exh. P.B. Was recorded at his instance by Manzoor Hussain, S.-I.
Manzoor Hussain, S.-I. Carried out the investigation of this case. He prepared the injury statement Exh. PF and Inquest Report Exh. PG and despatched the dead body of Mst. Farhat Bibi to mortuary of Tehsil Headquarter Hospital, Noorpur Thal for post--mortem examination through Allah Bakhsh, A.S.-I. He collected the blood-stained earth from the spot, made it into sealed parcel and took the same into his possession vide memo. Exh. PC attested by Nasir Khan, Tariq Hussain P.Ws. He prepared the rough sketch Exh. PH of the place of occurrence. He took into his possession Shalwar P-1, Shirt P-2, Dopatta P-3, the last-worn clothes of the deceased along with the packet, vide memo. Exh. PA attested by Allah Bakhsh. He recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses.
He got the site plan Exh. PJ prepared through the draftsman. Manzoor Hussain, accused was arrested on 5-5-1999 and on his disclosure he got recovered .30 bore pistol which was taken into his possession vide memo. Exh. PD attested by Nasir Khan and Muhammad Rafique P.Ws. He recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses and handed over the case property to the Moharrar of the Police Station. After completion of necessary investigation he submitted the challan for trial of the accused.
3. In order to prove its case the prosecution produced Allah Bakhsh A.S.-I. (P.W.1), Liaqat Ali F.C.
(P.W.2), Nasir Khan F.C. (P.W.-3), Ghulam Qadir, F.C. (P.W.-4), Nasir Khan complainant (P.W.-6), Kaleem Ullah (P.W.-7), Dr. Miss Munawar Khan W.I.O. (P.W.-8), Manzoor Hussain S.-I./I.O. (P.W.-9) and Mirza Muhammad Saeed, Draftsman (P.W.-10). Reports of Chemical Examiner Exh. PK, Serologist Exh.
PE/ 1 and that of Forensic Science Laboratory Exh. PL were also produced and, thereafter, the prosecution case was closed.
4. At the close of prosecution case, the statement of Manzoor Hussain appellant under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. He denied the allegations as levelled by the prosecution and professed about his innocence and when he was questioned as to whether he has anything else to say, he submitted his reply as under:-- "I am innocent. True facts of the case are that on the day of occurrence I had installed a thrasher in my fields for procuring grams. At night time I loaded grams at tractor trolley and left for my house.
On the way side, one of his tyre became punctured. I left tractor trolley and walked to my house.
When I reached my house, I saw my two minor daughters available at a cot in the courtyard of house while Mst. Farhat Bibi was found missing. I started searching her. She then emerged out along with a Tulai having in her lap from a room. I suspected that some male person was also available in the room. I directed Mst. Farhat Bibi to accompany me along with a Laltain in the room.
After entering the room, I chained the same. I found Abdul Sattar Baloch available underneath the cot. I caught hold of him and started grappling. My were overpowered me and the result was that Abdul Sattar fled away. In the meantime, she started running and reached the house of her parents. I followed her and out of Ghairat committed her murder. My daughters aged about 3 years and one year are alive. I am innocent. I may be acquitted of the charge. "
He did not get his statement recorded under section 340(2), Criminal Procedure Code, however, he produced a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1997-98 Exh. DB, and copy of Khasra Girdawari Exh. DC in his defence.
5. At the close of the tried the learned trial Court arrived to this conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code, consequently Manzoor Hussain was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the relevant record placed before me.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly argued that the occurrence in this case and place of occurrence are admitted facts, therefore, the simple point for determination is as to whether which version is true either introduced by the prosecution or by the defence. He argued that the evidence on the record would force to believe that Manzoor Hussain appellant is well-of, therefore, there was no justification to compel the deceased lady for having money from her parents, and the household articles even there is nothing on the record to believe that Manzoor Hussain is a man of bad character, therefore, the motive advanced by the prosecution was absolutely baseless and the actual story was that Manzoor Hussain appellant committed the Qatl of his were under Ghairat as introduced by himself in his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, therefore, when the defence version was plausible, then the provisions of section 302(c), Pakistan Penal Code are, attracted and that the conviction and sentence under section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code was not justified, which have been opposed by the learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant who submitted that through convincing evidence the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, due to the commission of brutal murder the maximum sentence should have been awarded to the appellant.
8. It would appear from the evidence on the record that the defence version advanced by the appellant with regard to killing of his were under Ghairat was a baseless version for the reason that the time of incident as introduced by him in his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code was 'night time' and this time of occurrence is confirmed in his abovementioned statement when he further stated that he directed Mst. Farhat Bibi to accompany him along with lantern in the room. When Manzoor Hussain S.-I. (P.W.-9) was cross-examined by the learned defence counsel he was suggested that the first version of the accused was that he had installed thrasher at his Dera at night time and when he came back to his house, he along with his were having a lantern went inside the room and chained the same from inner side which means that even before this witness a night tune occurrence allegedly taken place about three or four days earlier was suggested but when Nasir Khan (P.W.-5) and Ghulam Qadir (P.W.-6) were cross-examined they were suggested about daytime incident which was almost as under:-- "It is incorrect that on 20-4-1999 Manzoor Hussain accused got loaded grams on a tractor-trolley belonging to Sultan son of Ahmad Khan and on the way side one of its tyre was punctured. It is incorrect that at about 9/10 a.m. When Manzoor Hussain reached his house he saw that his two daughters were sitting at a cot and their mother was not available. It is incorrect that upon witnessing his two daughters alone, Manzoor Hussain called for his were with loud voice, whereupon Mst. Farhat Bibi came out of a room having a Talai in her possession. It is incorrect that Manzoor Hussain suspected that a male was also available inside the room wherefrom Mst. Farhat Bibi emerged out. It is incorrect that after having a suspicion Manzoor Hussain went inside the room and therein saw Abdul Sattar hiding himself under a cot. "
9. The said material discrepancy over time of occurrence as alleged by the appellant or the accused named Manzoor Hussain cannot be justified by any argument, therefore, it force to believe that the defence version was an afterthought. If the alleged incident as introduced in the defence version had taken place in the daylight then any witness from the neighbourhood could be produced to establish that one Abdul Sattar hidden under the cot in a room of house of Manzoor Hussain had grappled with Manzoor Hussain and he was seen while fleeing from the spot and in the same way Mst. Farhat Bibi was seen while running towards her parent's house i.e. At least Sultan son of Ahmad Khan Baluch could be produced to prove that on 20-4-1999 Manzoor Hussain accused had loaded grams on a tractor trolley owned by him, but no independent witness has been produced to provide blood to the defence version. If the defence version advanced by the accused is simply in the shape of solitary statement, it may not be believed due to lac' of corroborative piece of evidence, moreover, the solitary statement of an accused person cannot be given any importance as compared to the prosecution version which is based upon different sets of sound evidence.
10. Now as far as the prosecution version is concerned it mainly rests on the motive advanced by Nasir Khan complainant stating that Manzoor Hussain was a vagabond and a man of ill-repute and , on seeing his conduct when the parents of the deceased lady stopped maintaining, Manzoor Hussain feeling annoyed committed the murder of his were. The evidence on the record particularly the statements of Nasir Khan (P.W.-5) complainant and Ghulam Qadir (P.W.-6) may show that Manzoor Hussain appellant was having sufficient land for cultivation and that the statement of Manzoor Hussain (P.W.-9) may show that Manzoor Hussain appellant was never challaned in any other case but all these circumstances on the record would not be sufficient to believe that Manzoor Hussain appellant was a noble man. In fact the circumstances prevailing inside the family determines the character of the husband because he might be having sufficient wealth with him but there are persons in our society who force the wives to bring money and other commodities from their parents. Even in family cases it has been observed many a times that a male person belonging to a rich family demanded huge valuable articles from the parents of the were, therefore, in the circumstances of this case, the determination of the character of the appellant was not from his general reputation which he was having outside the house but he was treated as vagabond by the complainant keeping in view the circumstances prevailing inside the family. No body came forward to rebut the version of the complainant or the observations recorded by the Investigating Officer, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the motive behind the occurrence was proved and in the same way the learned trial Court rightly analysed the evidence of the prosecution and rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant which being in accordance with law calls for no interference.
11. In view of the discussion above, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court dated 11-2-2000 is upheld and this appeal and the Revision Petition No.239 of 2000 are hereby dismissed.