' Faiz Ahmad-appellant was sent up to face trial in case F.I.R. No,372 of 1996, registered at Police Station, City Chishtian, on 25-11-1996, for causing death of Mst. Naziran Begum and for causing injuries to Mst. Naseem Akhtar-complainant. Vide judgment dated 13-5-1998 the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bahawal Nagar camp at Chishtian convicted and sentenced the appellant as follows:--
(i) Under section 302, P.P.C. Imprisonment for life as Ta'zir.
(ii) Under section 337-F(ii), P.P.C. For causing injuries on the person of Mst. Naseem Akhtar/P.W.3 ' Rigorous imprisonment for one year.
' Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the convict.
2. Through this appeal Faiz Ahmad has challenged his conviction and sentence.
3. On the statement of Mst. Naseem Akhtar (P.W.3), F.I.R. No,372 of 1996, Exh.P.E. Was registered at Police Station, City Chishtian on 25-11-1996 at 2-55 a.m. (during night) for offences under sections 302/324, P.P.C.
4. According to F.I.R. The complainant lived in Mohallah Noorpura, Chishtian, alongwith her parents, sisters and brother. On the fateful night her father had gone to Karachi. Faiz Ahmadappellant, step- brother of the complainant, who was a vagabond, used to quarrel with the mother of the complainant and insisted that exchanged marriage (Watta) should be arranged for him. Mst.
Naziran Begum (mother of the complainant) did not agree. On 25-11-1996 at about 2-15 a.m.
(during night). The complainant woke up and saw that Faiz Ahmad was present holding a Chhuri in his hand. The complainant raised alarm, which attracted Abdul Sattar, P.W.4 and Muhammad Siddique. Within the view of the P.Ws., Faiz Ahmad gave Chhuri blow on the chest of Mst. Naziran Begum and when complainant tried to rescue her mother, Faiz Ahmad repeatedly inflicted Chhuri blows on her person. Faiz Ahmad was apprehended at the spot alongwith blood-stained Chhuri by the P.Ws. And the neighbours, who had assembled there. Mst. Naziran Begum (mother of the complainant) died at the spot.
5. After registration of case, Sh. Abid Akhtar, Inspector, P.W.7, rushed to the scene of occurrence. He collected blood stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.C. Attested by Wali Muhammad, P.W.2 and one Sher Muhammad (not produced). On the same day, i.e. 25-11-1996 he formally arrested Faiz Ahmad- appellant and after effecting recovery of Chhuri P.1 from his possession prepared memo. Exh.P.B.
Attested by the witnesses mentioned above. Blood-stained Shirt P.2 and Shalwar P.3, belonging to Faiz Ahmad-appellant, were also taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.D. Attested by the afore- mentioned witnesses.
6. Dr. Muhammad Afzal Saqib (P.W.5) , on the same date i.e. 25-11-1996 at 11-45 a.m., medically examined Faiz Ahmad-appellant, who had received injury by the sharp-edged weapon over palm of right hand in between right thumb and right index finger.
7. After completion of investigation, the appellant was sent up to face trial, who denied the charges, thus the trial commenced. During trial, the prosecution produced 10 witnesses to prove its case.
Mst. Naseem Akhtar-complainant (P.W.3) and Abdul Sattar (P.W.4) furnished the ocular account.
P.W.3 also stated about the motive. P.W.2, Wali Muhammad stated about the spot recoveries, recovery of blood-stained Chhuri produced by the appellant as well as the recovery of bloodstained Chhuri produced by the appellant as well as the recovery of blood stained clothes- worn by the appellant. Dr. Muhammad Afzal Saqib appeared as P.W.5 and stated that he had examined Mst. Naseem Akhtar at about 3-15 a.m. On 25-11-1996 and observed a stab wound and one incised wound on the right thigh and left fore arm. He further stated that he also examined Faiz Ahmad-appellant and observed incised wound over palm of right hand in between right thumb and index finger. Dr. Robina Mushtaq appeared as P.W.8 and brought on record the postmortem report Exh.P.L. She stated that she had observed a stab wound over left side of chest of the deceased. According to her opinion, the deceased had lost her life due to cardio respiratory failure due to severe haemorrhage and shock caused by injury No,l. P.W.7, Sh. Abid Akhtar, Inspector, stated about the registration of case and the investigation. The rest of the witnesses were formal in nature. The prosecution closed its case after tendering in evidence the report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.M. According to which, the recovered Chhuri and the clothes, worn by the appellant, were stained with human blood.
8. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The appellant admitted that blood-stained Chhuri was recovered from his possession and that he had committed the murder of Mst. Naziran Begum but according to him the correct facts were that on the night in between 14/15-11-1996 he came to his house and saw her step-mother Mst. Naziran Begum in compromising position with Abdul Sattar, P.W., therefore, on account of `Ghairat' he picked up a Chhuri from the nearby and inflicted blow on the person of Mst. Naziran Begum, while Abdul Sattar P.W. Ran away from the spot.
He further stated that Mst. Naziran Begum and Abdul Sattar were present on a cot outside the room and after the occurrence the dead-body of Mst. Naziran Begum was shifted in the room. He went on to say that for that reason the cot on which the dead-body was lying was not stained with any blood. According to appellant, he himself had appeared before the police and reported the matter, which was not witnessed by any other P.W. However, neither the appellant appeared as a witness in his defence under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. Nor he led any defence.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the motive could not be proved by the prosecution; that the appellant lived in the same house alongwith the deceased; that there is nothing on record to show as to why the appellant fatally assaulted--upon the deceased on the fateful night; that Abdul Sattar P.W. Was not a resident of the house; and that it is a case which merited reduction of sentence as the appellant had committed murder under grave and sudden provocation after seeing Mst. Naziran Begum in an objectionable condition with Abdul Sattar, P.W.
10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has argued that it was a foolproof case; that the appellant has committed the murder brutally and deserved no sympathy; and that the defence taken by the appellant was not borne out from the circumstances of the case.
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and scanned the entire record minutely. The presence of Mst. Naseem Akhtar, P.W.3 at the time of occurrence cannot be denied, as not only she was an inmate of the house but also received injuries at the hands of the appellant.
Similarly, the appellant has also admitted the presence of Abdul Sattar, P.W.4 though in a different context. P.Ws.3 and .4 have supported the prosecution case as set down in the promptly lodged F.I.R. Despite lengthy cross-examination nothing could be brought on record as to why Mst. Naseem Akhtar, P.W.3 should concoct a false story against the appellant. The appellant was caught red- handed at the spot. Blood-stained Chhuri and the blood-stained clothes worn by the appellant at the time of occurrence were taken into possession. The story of the prosecution is fully supported by P.W.5, Dr. Afzal Saqib (who had examined Mst. Naseem Akhtar, P.W.3 and the appellant) and P.W.8, Dr. Robina Mushtaq (who had conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased). The appellant has also admitted the occurrence but he has tried to give it a twist by leyelling allegation of Zina against the deceased and P.W.4., Abdul Sattar. In support of this allegation neither the appellant has produced any witness nor he had courage to face the cross-examination by appearing in his defence as envisaged by section 340(2), Cr.P.C. On the fateful night the deceased was sleeping in a room alongwith her daughter Mst. Naseem Akhtar, P.W.3 and three sons. In the adjacent room Abdul Sattar, P.W.4, who is admittedly a close relative of the deceased, being Khalazad was sleeping alongwith Muhammad Sdidique. It is most unlikely that in the presence of her adult daughter, sons and a guest the deceased would have a meeting with Abdul Sattar, P.W. In the interest of justice, in accordance with subsection (2) of section 172, Cr.P.C. I have gone through the statement of the appellant recorded by the police at the time of his arrest. In that statement he has not stated any word relating to relationship between the deceased and Abdul Sattar P.W.
Rather admitted that he was annoyed over the behaviour of the deceased, who was not willing to give hand of her daughter in exchange (Watta) to facilitate the appellant's marriage. According to Column. No,7 of the inquest report Exh.P.J., prepared soon after the occurrence, the deceased was wearing Qameez and Shalwar. It reveals that in order to save his skin the appellant has chosen to level such insulting allegation against the deceased. It is like adding salt to the injuries. Not only that the story put forward by the appellant is not supported by any evidence but the same is belied by the circumstances of the case as well. The motive as set by the prosecution in the 'case is quite plausible and undeniable. The appellant was unmarried and in this part of the world exchange marriages are customary.
12. As a sequel to the above discussion I am of the firm opinion that, in the circumstances of the case, prosecution has proved its case beyond any doubt. Resultantly this appeal having no merit stands dismissed.