1991 P Cr (PLP)

Sardar Rafique Mehmood for the Complainant. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for Respondents. The reference has been made by the District Criminal Court, Muzaffarabad on account of difference of opinion between the members of the Court. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused tried on the charge of murder and suppression of evidence whereas the learned District Qazi, the other member of the Court, recorded his disagreement in respect of three accused and convicted Noor Ahmad alias Thola of the charge of murder and awarded him sentence of Diyyat. Mst. Bibi Jan, the other accused, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on the charge of abetting the accused in the commission of murder in furtherance of their common intention. Rematullah was convicted on the charge of suppression of evidence of murder and was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment in addition to fine in the sum of Rs.2,000.

2. Mst. Anwar Jan, deceased, daughter of the complainant, died on March, 10,1983 at 4 p.m. She was buried on the next day. On March 13, Mst. Rahim Jan, her mother, made a report to S.S.P. Muzaffarabad with a copy to the President of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and the I.-G.P. wherein it was alleged that Mst. Anwar Jan was in fact murdered by Mst. Bibi Jan, the second wife of Azizur Rehman. It was stated that the deceased visited her mother in the morning hours-on the day of incident and informed her that she was accompanying Mst. Bibi Jan to Seri Behk as a wall of her cottage was stated to have fallen. Mst. Bibi Jan carried a hatchet with her. She killed the deceased with the hatchet at a deserted place in the jungle and thereafter spread rumour that the deceased died by a fall from a tree. The in-laws of the deceased suppressed the incident of murder and buried her hurriedly. The application was forwarded by the S.S.P. to S.H.O. Kahori. It was passed on the A.S.I. who visited the village, made preliminary inquiry and thereafter moved the higher authorities for exhumation of the dead body and its post-mortem. Police guard was also posted at the graveyard. Exhumation was made on March 21 in presence of the Magistrate, under the instructions of the District Magistrate, and post-mortem was also conducted on the same day. The case was registered. The accused were put to trial on the charge of murder and suppression of evidence as contemplated under section 5 of the Islamic Penal Laws Act read with sections 201 and 34 of the Penal Code.

3. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution produced Mst. Rahim Jan, complainant, Saeed-ur-Rehman, Mst. Amirana Begum, Abdur Rashid, Bahadur Zaman, Mir Zaman, Abdul Aziz Usmani, Suleman, Mir Zaman son of Inayatullah, Mst. Raqiyya Bibi, Mst. Naeema Bibi, Noor Zaman, Abdul Qayyum, Muhammad Hussain, Noor Zaman son of Muhammad Zaman, Abdur Rehman, Ali Zaman, Faqirullah, Ali Akbar, Mulk Eiman, Ali Akbar son of Munshi, Abdur Rehman, Abdul Maalik, Abdul Majid, A.S.I., Bashir Hussain Shah, Constable, Muhammad Yasin, Head Constable, Dr. Khawaja Muhammad Iqbal, Medical Officer, Ghulam Nabi Khan, Raja Fazlur Rehman Khan, Teshildar/Magistrate and Sardar Anwar Hussain, Sub-Judge.

4. The defence also led evidence by producing Munshi Muhammad Siddique, petition-writer, Dr. Shabbir Ahmad, Munshi Khan, Subedar Abdul Aziz, Stamp-vendor, Raja Azhar Mahmood, Advocate, Tariq Iqbal Lone, Advocate, Ghulam Rasool, Stamp-vendor, Saifullah, Abdul Qayyum, Noor Hassan Shah and Muhammad Ali.

5. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for defence, raised the following objections against the order of conviction passed by the learned District Qazi and in support of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, the other member of the Court:-- (a) that the first information report was belated and it was made after preliminary investigation, as such it was incredible and carried no legal weight; (b) that the testimony of Mir Zaman, an alleged eye-witness, was not reliable for; (i) he was a chance witness; (ii) he failed to inform the police in time about the incident and, for the first time, disclosed the details,8 days after the incident; and (iii) there was no independent corroboration; (c) that extra judicial confession ascribed to the accused was retracted and uncorroborated; and (d) that the recovery of hatchet, the weapon of offence, was doubtful. The recovery was not made in presence of respectable witnesses of the locality, as the witnesses of the recovery were related and interested. The learned Advocate-General and Mr. Rafique Mahmood, the learned counsel for the complainant, controverted the aforesaid points and supported the finding of the learned District Qazi.

6. A perusal of the record shows that Mst. Anwar Jan, deceased, received three incised wounds, on the top of skull, on left parietal region of head and on the occipital region, back of the skull. An abrasion was caused on the forehead and a small penetrating wound on the dorsom of left hand. There was a penetrating wound on the dorsom of left wrist. There was bleeding from nostril. The aforesaid injuries were noticed by the witnesses who visited the spot immediately after the incident and saw the dead body, in addition to those who gave bath to the deceased and buried her the next day. Mst. Rahim Jan, mother of the deceased, on seeing the injuries of her daughter, failed to reconcile with the story that she died, as alleged; by fall from a tree. She smelt some foul play resulting in violence made on the deceased, as such she moved the S.S.P. through a written application on March 13, i.e. on the third day after the burial of her daughter. It was explained in the application that all the members of the family of the in-laws of the deceased and other respectables of the village, stood in her way by prevailing upon her to desist from making a report to the police. The explanation fords mention in the report Exh.P.A. and statements made, before the police on March 19, prior to exhumation of the dead body. Thus, keeping in view the socio-economic conditions of the complainant and her sex coupled with the fact that she was an illiterate old woman living in a distant part of the country, the delay in making the report stands well-explained. The case of prosecution, therefore, cannot be outrightly thrown away on the ground of delay alone.

7. Ordinarily, it is enjoined upon prosecution to make a prompt report of an incident of crime. But such an action is expected in the light of attending circumstances and prevailing conditions in such case. When crime is committed in a city or a developed rural area, delay in reporting the crime is always given weight, as a safeguard against the possibility of concoction, fabrication and false improvement in prosecution's version. But this rule is not absolute and inflexible. In presence of plausible and convincing explanation, coupled with attending circumstances of crime, delay in making report to the police or administrative authorities is deemed condonable. In present case, as mentioned earlier, the delay in making report to the authorities concerned is well-explained in the report itself as well as the testimony of Mst. Rahim Jan. The explanation rendered by the informant finds corroboration from the attending circumstances.

8. It is evident from the Panchayatnama of March 10 that it was signed by Rehmatullah Khan, Member Union Council, Haji Muhammad Amin, President Dehi Committee, Ali Rehman and Abdur Rehman, Members of Dehi Committee, Raja Abdur Rehman, Chairman, Zakat Committee. Ali Akbar and Mulk Eiman, Members, Zakat Committee, Bahadur Zaman, Lambardar, Suleman, Noor Zaman etc. In the `Panchayatnama', it was explained that the deceased fell from a tree while breaking twigs and suffered fatal injuries. Her death was declared as accidental and no one was held responsible for the same. Ordinarily, such Panchayatnamas are not recorded in case of natural death or by an accident unless, of course, the executants of the document were conscious of some foul play with the victim of the violence and wanted to conceal and hush up the crime. Panchayatnamas are prepared in very exceptional circumstances. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the urgency and necessity of preparation of the Panchayatnama goes unexplained.

9. The other limb of the first objection is that the first information report was made after preliminary investigation as such it was inadmissible and carried no legal weight. Reference was made to Budho's case P L D 1965 Kar. 76, Idrees Ali's case P L D 1971 Dacca 254 and Muhammad Farooq's case P L D 1976 Lah. 1403. The term `first information report' is construed as the earliest communication or intimation of crime to the State agency, to set it in motion to undertake investigation. Such information, irrespective of its brevity or length, has to convey the relevant information pertaining to the nature and place, of occurrence, including the description of the victim of violence. The information may be made by a third person or an eye-witness as the primary object of such information is to move the machinery in action to undertake inquiry and investigation in the alleged crime. The objection relating to preliminary inquiry preceding the first information, does not hold good in present case as the first information was made by Mst. Rahim Jan through a written application addressed to the S.S.P. and the inquiry, which according to the learned defence counsel was preliminary inquiry, in fact was made prior to registration of the case. The confusion, perhaps, has arisen on account of appreciation of the meaning of first information report and its scope. Here, in present case, it appears that the status of first information report is being attached to the registration of the case instead of the written application moved by the mother of the deceased. Therefore, to eliminate the element of confusion and doubt, it is deemed pertinent tq make it clear that the status of the first information report, in present case, is attached to the application moved on March 13 and not to the report of the police which was duly entered in its daily diary, after recording the statements of the informant and other persons. The principle enunciated in the authorities referred to above, therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case. The objection is, therefore, repelled.

10. The next objection partains to the testimony of Mir Zaman, an eye witness of the incident. It is noticed that the dead body was exhumed on 21st March. The post-mortem was also conducted on the same day, although the case was registered on March 19 at 4 p.m. The case was registered at the instance of the A.S.I. to whom the application of Mst. Rahim Jan was sent for proper action. The A.S.I., on receipt of the application, examined Mst. Rahim Jan and Haji Bahadur Zaman on March

19. On satisfaction that the charge described in the application, prima facie, was cognizable, the case was registered and the authorities concerned were moved for exhumation of the dead body. The District Magistrate issued order to the Tehsildar/Magistrate 2nd Class to accompany the police for the purpose of exhumation. The police, accompanied by the-Magistrate and the doctor, visited the village on March 21 when exhumation and post- mortem of the dead body was conducted. This is just to show that in fact the investigation in the matter commenced on March

21. Mir Zaman also appeared before the police on the same day when his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. was recorded. . According to the testimony of this witness, who is resident of village Garan Kutli he left his home in the morning for Rawalpindi. He met Saeed-ur- Rehman on his sway who was also going to Rawalpindi. They were walking together and when they reached Seri Behk near the mosque and followed the path leading towards Patika, they were attracted by the cries but found no one around them. They moved towards the direction of the cries and found down at a distance of 35 yards, Noor Ahmad, accused, assaulting the victim with a hatchet. Mst. Anwar Jan was lying on the ground and Mst. Bibi Jan was standing at a distance of 2-3 yards. On challenge of the witness, the accused ran away from the scene. He was chased for some distance but the assailant disappeared in the forest. They arrived together at the place where the victim was lying and found her dead. They told Mst. Bibi Jan to stay near the dead body and that they would themselves inform the relatives of the deceased. After covering some distance, they met Mst. Zainab Noor, whom they informed of the episode. When they reached Patika, it was raining very heavily. The shops were closed. They came across Rehmatullah, accused, father of Mst. Bibi Jan, to whom they related the incident and told him to reach on the scene immediately, from there, they left for Muzaffarabad, where they boarded a bus for Rawalpindi. The witness stayed for some days at Rawalpindi and came back the evening before the police arrived on the scene where he made statement before it, narrating the whole incident. The Investigating Officer felt advised to secure the statement of the eye-witnesses under section 164, Cr.P.C. he took them to the Magistrate where their statements were recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. on 27th of April. Mir Zaman gave a detailed account of the incident in his testimony before the Court whereas Saeed -ur-Rehman resiled from the same and was declared hostile and cross-examined.

11. The testimony of Mir Zaman is assailed on the ground of delay in recording his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. It was emphasised that when a witness maintains silence over a crime witnessed by him, if the delay was sufficient, it was not in the interest of justice to rely upon the testimony of such a witness. Reference was made to Allah Din's case, 1976 P Cr. L J 249, Sudho's case P L D 1965 Kar. 76, Muhammad Yasin's case 1973 P Cr. L J 448, Qabil Shah's case P L D 1960 Kar. 697 and Maqbool Ahmad alias Makoo's case 1983 P Cr. L J 1140. In all the aforesaid authorities, the testimony of the witnesses who disclosed the details of the incident before the police after considerable delay was rejected as the same was not deemed free from doubt or was found fabricated.

12. Ordinarily, it is always insisted upon that a witness must come forward without any reasonable delay to inform the State agencies of the crime noticed by him. Such an urgency and necessity is considered as a safeguard, in the interest of justice, against any possibility of fabrication, concoction or improvement to rope in any innocent person in the crime. But this rule is not absolute, inflexible and universal, not subject to any exception. This is so, as keeping in view the human conduct in ordinary life, each case has to be considered in the light of its own peculiar facts. The real test for acceptance of the testimony of a witness, irrespective of his rendering information to the police at its earliest or after some delay, rests on its true account. When delay in making statement before the police is accompanied by a satisfactory explanation, it is seldom deemed prudent to reject the testimony merely on account of delay in making statement before the police. The testimony of Mir Zaman, eye-witness, shows that he gave explanation for not making report directly to the police as, according to him, Mst. Bibi Jan was also present as an eye-witness of the incident. Secondly, he immediately informed Mst. Zainab Noor who met the witness at some distance from the place of incident. Thereafter, he informed Rehmatullah at Patika: In such situation, it was not expected of the witness further to go to the police or some other State agency to give information of the crime. It was also explained that the witness remained in Rawalpindi for a week also and when he came back home, he immediately went to the police at the place of investigation and disclosed the details of the incident witnessed by him. We find no delay in making the statement by the witness before the police after commencement of the investigation. Therefore, the principle laid down in the aforesaid authorities is not squarely applicable to the present case.

13. The other aspect of the objection pertains to recording of statements under section 164, Cr.P.C. It was argued that, ordinarily, statement of a witness is not recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate unless the witness' was of a doubtful character or the prosecution was convinced that the witness being false one, was likely to resile from the cooked up stand. May be that in some cases, the aforesaid consideration would prevail, but it does not extend to all cases where statements of witnesses are recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. First of all, it depends upon the aptitude of the Investigating Officer and, secondly, the decision to produce a witness before the Magistrate for his statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. invariably depends upon the peculiar, circumstances of each case. Here, in present case, we have already noticed that I the deceased, who was subjected to violence, was buried by the family members of her in-laws with the support of the local respectables and the cause of her death was suppressed and death was shown by accident due to falling from tree. The report was made to the police by her father-in-law. They were not satisfied with the finding of the aforesaid report, as further they prepared a Panchayatnama to put a final seal to the incident of violence. In such situation, the complainant, who happened to be a widow, might have apprehended', tampering of evidence by the accused party. Thus, on the initiative and advice of the complainant, the Investigating Officer felt it advised to get the statements of the `witnesses recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. The aforesaid apprehension finds support from the fact as Saeed-ur-Rehman, the other eye-witness, whose', statement was also recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. resiled from the same in the trial Court and disowned his statement before the police. In the circumstances, it cannot be suggested that the statement of the witness was recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. due to its being planted a fake witness to rope in innocent persons on the charge of murder.

14. In presence of the circumstances listed above, it is enjoined upon the Court to carefully scrutinise the testimony of the witness and to assess it as truthful evidence. Mir Zaman gave the account in his testimony as mentioned above and was subjected to considerable cross-examination. The learned counsel for defence was unable to point out any inconsistency, contradiction or improvement in the testimony of the aforesaid witness. He was not shown inimical, related or interested so as to cast doubt on his testimony. He hails from a different village and belongs to a different Biradri. He is not shown to have any interest, whatsoever, to involve innocent persons in the case of capital) punishment. The defence endeavoured to shatter his testimony by putting him the suggestion that he demanded money from the accused in order to resile from his evidence. The suggestion was emphatically denied.

15. It appears from the record that some photostats of affidavits of Mir Zaman were placed on record. The photostat copies were not certified true copies of the affidavits. These copies were inadmissible in evidence. The affidavits ascribed to the witness were emphatically denied by him. The witness was not confronted with the original affidavits. Thus, the half-hearted attempt made by defence to discredit the witness by confronting him with photostats of affidavits, also failed.

16. It is undenied that Mir Zaman was a chance witness as he saw the incident of infliction of fatal injuries to the deceased while he was on his way to Muzaffarabad. From that angle, he was not a natural witness of the incident. But it was equally undenied that the place of incident being outside the village and visible from the passage followed by the witness, his testimony cannot be held as week one. At the best, such testimony is desired to be accepted when it finds independent corroboration. To corroborate the testimony of the witness, the prosecution provided the evidence of blood-stained, earth recovered from the place where the deceased was found lying by the witness. Pieces of broken glass bangles and an ear-ring (Kaanta) were also recovered from there. In addition to that, the hatchet, the alleged weapon of offence, was recovered at the instance of Noor Ahmad, accused, from his residence. It was blood-stained. It was sent to the Chemical Examiner and Serologist -for its examination arid determination of the origin and grouping of blood alongwith the blood-stained earth and the clothes of the deceased. The blood found on the hatchet and the clothes of the deceased was determined as of common origin and human blood. Its group was declared as Group `O'. The report of the Serologist placed on the file: of the trial Court is taken into consideration in evidence even in absence of its proper tender ands formal proof in the manner of testimony of the Serologist.

17. The next objection raised by the learned counsel for defence pertains to recovery of the hatchet at the instance of Noor Ahmad, accused. It was argued that the hatchet was not recovered in presence of witnesses, of the locality. Master Abdur Rashid and Master Abdul Aziz, the recovery witnesses, were interested and related as such their evidence was to be excluded. Reference was made to Mangio's case 1976 P Cr. L J 243 and Hidayatullah's case 1983 P Cr. L J

447. The law relating to search contained under section 102 and 103 of the Criminal Procedure Code lays down a scheme of making search or inspection or recoveries of incriminating articles. It is contemplated that before making search or inspection or recovery, the Police Officer or other person shall call upon two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate, to attend and witness the search or inspection or recovery. It was in the light of these provisions of law that the testimony of Master Abdul Rashid and Master Abdul Aziz was attacked on the point of recovery of the hatchet, the weapon of offence. Both the witnesses belong to village Chhanjal whereas the place of recovery is the house of Noor Ahmad, accused, situate in village Choora. It was explained by Master Abdul Aziz and Master Abdur Rashid that when the accused led the police to the recovery of the hatchet, they were present over there alongwith various other persons. Thus, they accompanied the police to the place of recovery. It was suggested to the witnesses that respectables of the locality of village Choora were also present but both the witnesses denied or expressed ignorance about the presence of witnesses of the locality.

18. It is evident from the testimony of the witnesses of recovery that the investigation was being made in village Chhanjal where the alleged incident of murder took place. Noor. Ahmad, accused, was in the police custody and was kept in village Chhanjal when he led the police to recovery of the hatchet. In the circumstances, the persons present at the investigation camp accompanied the police to witness the recovery.

19. The scheme of law making provision for presence of two respectables of the locality to accompany the Police Officer making search of the house, was introduced as a safeguard against fake recoveries. The term `respectables' has slightly lost its importance after the Independence, as in a free society, all citizens are deemed respectable unless proved otherwise. Therefore, this term, which was introduced by the Legislature during Colonial Rule, is not to be construed narrowly in the light of the present socio-economic status of the inhabitants, but is to be construed in a broader sense by applying the rule of respectability to all citizens in equal manner. The term `locality', again, is not defined in the Criminal Procedure Code or other relevant laws. It has to be construed in the broader, sense to avoid any likelihood of difficulty at the stage of investigation or trial. Thus, reference to the term `locality' is not to be construed in a narrow sense by reducing the distance between the place of recovery and the residence of the witness of recovery. The object of law is .to be kept in view to ensure that the Police Officer who made the recovery, was accompanied by two other persons and that was a sufficient test to uphold the recovery of incriminating articles. This view finds support from Qillandar Shah's case, P L D 1957 AJ&K

1. The meaning and scope of the term `locality' was analysed by the learned Judge of this Court in the following manner:-- "No doubt, in section 103, Part I, Criminal P.C. the words `inhabitants of the locality' do occur, but it is to be seen, what the term `locality' used in this section denotes. It is certainly not to be interpreted in a restricted and narrow sense and if it is interpreted in a narrow sense, it might at times create insurmountable difficulty for the officer, who conducts the search, particularly in a country like Azad Kashmir, where a village extends over miles, with a house here and a house there, instead of having houses clustered together like houses in the villages in plains. `Locality' means position, place and even district but certainly does not mean only a place at a stone's throw from the house to be searched. The word `locality' has a comprehensive meaning and includes places even a few miles from the place of search. Thus, if the search witnesses in the present did not strictly belong to a place close to the houses searched, it did not matter much, because they definitely belong to an area within a few miles of the houses that were searched and are respectable:' The aforesaid authority finds support from Taj Muhammad's case 1980 P Cr. L J 927 and Muhammad Sharifs case 1982 P Cr. L J 615.

20. Abdul Aziz, a witness of recovery of the hatchet, is resident of village Chhanjal. He is shown as an independent witness as he is neither shown closely related to the deceased nor interested to falsely implicate the accused. The defence suggested him that he was involved in litigation against the accused persons but it was explained, in reply, by the witness that a case under section 107, Cr.P.C. lodged against him was instituted after the alleged incident. The application of Rehmatullah, accused, against the witness under section 107, Cr.P.C. was, perhaps, preferred to show him inimical towards him. But the fact remains that no animosity of the witness against Noor Ahmad, accused, has been brought out. Master Abdur Rashid is maternal-uncle of the deceased. The relationship is undenied, but mere relationship of the witness with the deceased cannot be a ground to ignore his testimony on the point of recovery of the weapon of offence. He is not shown inimical towards Noor Ahmad at all.

21. Suleman deposed that he accompanied his wife to village Joora. He saw the ladies, namely, Mst. Anwar Jan, Mst. Bibi Jan and Mst. Zainab Noor sitting together. When he went ahead, he met Noor Ahmad, accused, who inquired from him as to whether he saw the ladies coming towards him or not. The witness replied that the ladies were seen by him. On his coming back, he found Mst, Anwar Jan dead. He noticed the injuries on her body. When lie was told by Mst. Bibi Jan, accused, to tell the people that Mst. Anwar Jan died by falling from tree. Mir Zaman, another witness, also gave the details of the circumstances immediately after the occurrence. Mst. Raqiyaa Bibi corroborated Suleman by showing that she met the deceased and the accused persons while going to bring fuel-wood. When she came back, she saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the way. She felt some foul play of violence on the victim. Identical is the evidence of Mst. Naeema Bibi. P.W. Muhammad Zaman also deposed about the attending circumstances to the alleged incident of murder. Abdul Qayyum deposed among others, that Noor Ahmad, accused, made extra-judicial confession before him and admitted the killing of the deceased. He was subjected to lengthy cross- examination by defence. The witness is related to both the parties. Muhammad Hassan is witness of recovery of wrist watch, recovered from Noor Ahmad, accused. According to prosecution, the wrist watch was given to Noor Ahmed by Mst. Bibi Jan as a token consideration for killing the deceased. Noor Zaman is a witness of recovery of the clothes of the deceased. Abdur Rehman is a witness of Panchayatnama. He explained as to under what circumstances, Master Noor Zaman prepared the Panchayatnama and got the signatures on it. Ali Zaman is also a witness of the Panchayatnama. He also gave the details of the circumstances under which the Panchayatnama was written in his presence and his signature was secured as a marginal witness. Similar is the evidence of Faqirullah and Ali Akbar. Ali Akbar is also a witness of extra judicial confession of Noor Ahmad, accused, and recovery of bangles removed from the wrist of the deceased at the time of post-mortem. He was also a witness of recovery of the wrist watch. Mulk Eiman and Ali Akbar son of Munshi Abdur Rehman are also witnesses of the Panchayatnama.

22. Prosecution is always under duty to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Whenever a slightest doubt is found present, its benefit goes to the defence. In present case, the aforelisted circumstances go a long way to establish that Mst. Anwar Jan, deceased, was the victim of violence. Mst. Bibi Jan and Mst. Anwar Jan both were wives of Aziz-ur-Rehman. Aziz-ur-Rehman was in Saudi Arabia during the days of the incident. Both the ladies lived in close neighbourhood. The deceased was pregnant by eight months. Male child was found in her womb. The foetus also died due to the injuries suffered by the deceased. The testimony of Mir Zaman, corroborated by the medico-legal evidence, the blood-stained hatchet, the weapon of offence, and the surrounding circumstances proved by the testimony of the other witnesses, establish the charge of murder against the accused person. The learned District Qazi, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion and awarded the 'sentence of Diyyat to Noor Ahmad.

23. Mst. Bibi Jan was ascribed the role of abetment and furtherance of common intention by providing the hatchet, the weapon of offence, to the principle accused. She was also ascribed the role of engaging Noor Ahmad for killing the deceased and passing of wrist watch to Noor Ahmad, accused, as token consideration for accomplishment of the common object. The wrist watch was recovered at the instance of Noor Ahmad, accused, but it was not identified as belonging to Mst. Bibi Jan, accused. There was no evidence in support of passing on the wrist watch to the principal accused.

24. As noticed earlier, Mst. Bibi Jan spread the rumour of dying of Mst. Anwar Jan by fall from a tree. Her father joined hands with her in suppressing the factum of violence of the victim by concocting the story of fall of the deceased from a tree. Rehmatullah, accused, was instrumental in preparation of the Panchayatnama and conveying false report to the police of `Marg Ittefaqia' of the deceased. The sentence of suppression of evidence as contemplated under section 201, Penal Code, is seven years in addition to fine. The learned District Qazi awarded the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment to Rehmatullah and five years' imprisonment to Mst. Bibi Jan. In view of the circumstances of the case, coupled with the tune consumed during the trial, the ends of justice would be served if Mst. Bibi Jan is awarded sentence of four years' imprisonment and Rehmatullah is awarded sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment, with a fine in the sum of rupees one thousand each. In default of payment of fine, they shall suffer further imprisonment for two months each.

25. The sentence of Diyyat awarded to Noor Ahmad, accused, by the District Qazi is affirmed. The amount of Diyyat shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased m the manner suggested by the learned District Qazi. On failure to pay the amount of Diyyat, Door Ahmad, accused, shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 14 years. The duration of rigorous imprisonment shall include the period of detention during trial of the accused persons. The reference is answered accordingly. MA.K./20/Sh.C.A. Reference answered accordingly.