1988 P Cr (PLP)

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑Muhammad Farooq and Mst. Naziran were tried by the learned Special Judge, Punjab Special Courts for Speedy Trial No.VI Bahawalpur under section 302/201/34, P.P.C. for the murder of Faqir Mohammad, deceased, and for concealing his dead body with a view that the evidence of his murder may disappear. The learned trial Judge, by his judgment dated 9‑12‑1987, convicted Mohammad Farooq and Mst. Naziran under section 302/34, P.P.C. and sentenced Mohammad Farooq to death with a fine of Rupees fifteen thousand (Rs.15,000) or in default thereof to undergo imprisonment for two years and Mst. Naziran to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rupees fifteen thousand (Rs.15,000) or in default thereof to undergo further imprisonment for two years. It was also ordered that half of the fine, if recovered, would be paid to the heirs of Faqir Mohammad, deceased.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 24‑1‑1987 at 8‑20 p.m., Mohammad Rashid P.W.14, a brother of Faqir Mohammad, deceased, lodged F.I.R. Ex.P.D/1 at Police Station Rahim Yar Khan 'A' Division City that .he and his brother Faqir Mohammad, deceased, lived in Mohallah Pathanistan with their respective families. They had separate shops. On 17‑1‑1987, both he and Faqir Mohammad, deceased, came to their respective shops in the usual manner. In the evening he went to the house of his father Rukan Din P.W.11 situate at Trinda Sawaye Khan, where children of Faqir Mohammad, deceased, had also gone, but Mst. Naziran, accused, wife of Faqir Mohammad, deceased, was at her house. On 18‑1‑1987 at about 9‑00 a.m., he came to his shop. Zulfiqar Ali P.W.5 met him and inquired whether his maternal uncle had gone to Trinda Sawaye Khan. He told him that he had not gone there, on which Zulfiqar Ali P.W.5 informed him that Faqir Mohammad, deceased, was neither at his house nor had he opened his shop. He then went to Mst. Naziran, accused to inquire about his brother Faqir Mohammad, deceased, and she old him that her husband had not come back to his house. He then went to the bazar where Dilshad Ali, Zaid Mohammad, Tanveer Ali, Munir Ali, Mohammad Anwar, Mohammad Rafiq, Mohammad Iqbal and Mohammad Rafiq shop‑keepers and neighbours in the bazar informed him that Faqir Mohammad, deceased, had offered his Maghrab prayers with them and thereafter he had gone to his house. He also made inquiries from other relations and friends, but the deceased remained untraced. He also alleged that after Faqir Mohammad, deceased, used to go to his shop, Mohammad Farooq, accused, had the practice of visiting and sitting at his brother's house with Mst. Naziran and then leaving the same about half an hour before the time of arrival of his brother. He alleged that Faqir Mohammad, deceased, objected to it and asked his wife not to do so but Mst. Naziran, accused, had quarrelled with him on this issue for the last five/six months and used to say that no one could stop Mohammad Farooq from coming to the house. He alleged that he suspected that Faqir Mohammad, deceased, had been abducted and had been done away with by Farooq appellant and his friends in connivance with Mst. Naziran, accused.

3. Since the case related to Police Station 'C' Division, Rahim Yar Khan, the above statement was transferred to that Police Station where Manzoor Ahmad Shah S.I. P.W. 15 registered formal F.I.R. Ex.PD/1 at 9‑05 p.m.

4. The police officer then took up the investigation. He visited the house of Faqir Mohammad, deceased, which he found locked on 24‑1‑1987, 25‑1‑1987 and 26‑1‑1987.

5. On 26‑1‑1987 whilst Mohammad Ismail P.W.10, Rukan Din P.W.11 and Mohammad Ishaq P.W.13 were coming out of the mosque after their morning prayers, they met Mst. Naziran, accused, some distance away from the mosque. Mst. Naziran, accused, fell at the feet of Rukan Din P.W. 11, her father‑in‑law, and begged for forgiveness. She then informed the said persons that for the last six months she had had illicit relations with Mohammad Farooq, accused, which her husband did not like, that she and Mohammad Farooq, accused, made plans to kill her husband, that earlier also Mohammad Farooq, accused, tried to kill her husband through a grenade, but he failed, that on the night between 17/18‑1‑1987 she had called Mohammad Farooq accused, and had made him sit in the baithak and when her husband was fast asleep, she had allowed Mohammad Farooq, accused, to come into the room, through a window, and he had murdered her husband. She then stated that the dead body was then wrapped in a khais and chaadar and then tied with ropes, whereafter Mohammad Farooq, accused, had taken it away and buried it elsewhere. All the said three witnesses then brought Mst. Naziran, accused, from Trinda Sawaye Khan to Rahim Yar Khan, where the Police were present in front of the house of Faqir Mohammad, deceased. Rukan Din P.W.11 then told the manner in which Mst. Naziran, accused, had admitted her guilt to the police officer, who then took custody of the said accused.

6. Mst. Naziran, accused, then opened the lock to the door of her house and the lock to the door of the inside room. Both the locks P.14 and P.16 and keys P.15 and P.17 were taken into possession by the Investigating Officer vide memo P.J. She pointed towards the place of murder in respect of which memo Exh.P.K. was prepared. The blood‑stained scrappirggs from the floor of the room were taken into possession vide memo P.L. The blood‑stained cot Exh.P.18 was taken into possession vide memo Exh.P.M. Mst Naziran, accused led to the recovery of blood‑stained Khais P.22, blood‑stained Chaadar P.23 and two blood‑stained towels P.24 and P.25, which were also taken into possession vide memo P.O. She also led to the recovery of a blood‑stained quilt P.19, blood‑stained bed sheet P.20 and a pair of blood‑stained shoes belonging to the deceased P.21/1‑2 from underneath a bag lying in the same room, which were taken into possession vide memo Exh.P.N. She also led to the recovery of her blood‑stained shirt P.26 and blood‑stained Shalwar P.27 from inside an iron bag lying in the same room which were taken into possession vide memo P.P. The said recoveries were witnessed by Mohammad Ishaq P.W.13, Manzoor Ahmad Shah S.I. P.W.15 and Munir Ahmad (Given up P.W.).

7. Likewise on 26‑1‑1987, Mohammad Farooq, accused, met Abdur Rashid P.W.8 and Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9 in the street in Rahim Yar Khan. The accused told both the said witnesses that he had committed a blunder. He mentioned that he had illicit relations with Mst. Naziran, accused, who was the wife of Faqir Mohammad, deceased, that he tried to murder the said deceased two months ago by throwing a grenade at him, but he had escaped, that he and Mst. Naziran then made plans to murder the deceased on the night between 17/18‑1‑1987 and that in accordance with the said plan he had entered the baithak that night and on the signal of Mst. Naziran he had entered the room, where Faqir Mohammad, deceased, was sleeping, and had murdered him with a hatchet. He and Mst.Naziran had then wrapped the dead body of the deceased in a blanket and tied it with a rope. He then took the dead body to a lonely place where he buried it. He also stated that he had thrown away the hatchet and a kassi at that place in a ditch. After this extra‑judicial confession, Abdur Rashid P.W.8 and Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9 apprehended Mohammad Farooq, accused, and produced him before the Investigating Officer who was present outside the house of Faqir Mohammad, deceased.

8. Mohammad Farooq, accused, then led the Police to the place where he had buried the dead body of Faqir Mohammad, deceased, and got said body recovered, after digging it out from under the earth. The body was taken into possession by the police vide memo PE. The said recovery was witnessed by Fazal Karim Khan P.W.7, Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9, Manzoor Ahmad Shah S.I. P.W.15 and Qari Zafar lqbal (given up P.W.). The said police officer also took into possession blood‑stained earth from where the dead body was recovered vide memo Exh.P.F. The said recoveries were witnessed by Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9, Manzoor Ahmad Shah S.I. P.W.15 and Munir Ahmad (given un P.W.).

9. After preparing the necessary papers, the dead body of Faqir Mohammad, deceased, was sent for post‑mortem examination. The same day i.e. 26‑1‑1987 at 4‑00 p.m., Dr. Qambar Zia P.W.4 performed the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Faqir Mohammad, deceased. The body was contaminated with oil, skin of the body had peeled off. Rigor mortis and post‑mortem staining were not present. The abdomen was distended. Eyes and mouth were closed. The body was clad in blue flowerish Tahband (loin cloth), white vest and check Khais. A rope of jute was encircled around the body. Testicles and penis were swollen and blood‑stained. He found the following injuries on the dead body; (1) An incised wound 2 cm x cm bone deep communicating with injury No.2 on the bridge of the nose. (2) An incised wound 12 cm x 3 cm bone deep cutting the maxilla and mandible communicating with above injury on the right cheek. (3) An incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm skin deep on the right side of the head. (4) An incised wound 7 cm x 3 cm scalp deep on the left side of the head. (5) An incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm skin deep on the left side of the head, 3 cm behind injury No. 3 (6) An incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm bone deep with underlying bone fractured on the left side of top of the head. (7) An incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm skin deep on the left side of the back of the head. (8) The thumb of the left hand was hanging with tag of skin of the hand. The wound was incised. (9) An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm bone deep on the proximal phylanx of the right thumb. On internal examination, the doctor observed that the scalp was conjested, the skull was fractured on the left temporal region on the top and there was fracture of the floor of the interior crananial fossa. The menigial membranes were congested. Right maxilla and right side of the mandible were cut. External gengilia was swollen and blood‑stained. All the injuries were found to be ante‑mortem and caused by sharp‑edged weapon. Injuries Nos.1, 2, 4 and '6 were found to be sufficient to cause death individually as well as collectively in the ordinary course of nature. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage. Probable time between injuries and death was about an hour and that between death and post‑mortem examination within ten days.

11. On 27‑1‑1987, Mohammad Farooq, accused led to the recovery of blood‑stained hatchet P.6 and Kass9 P.7 from a ditch situate near the place of recovery of the dead body, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.G. The said recovery was witnessed by Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9, Manzoor Ahmad Shah S.I. P.W.15 and Munir Ahmad (given up P.W.) He also led to the recovery of his blood‑stained shirt P.8 and blood‑stained Shalwar P.9 from inside an iron box lying in the room of a house situate in Basti Nawaye Wali, which were taken into possession by the police vide memo P.L. He also led the police to the recovery of identity card P.10, watch P.11, purse P.12 and a bunch of keys P.13/1 to 4 belonging to Faqir Mohammad, deceased from underneath the said iron box, which were taken into possession vide memo PI. All these recoveries were witnessed by Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9, Manzoor Ahmad Shah S.I. P.W.15, Mohammad Yaqoob (given up P.W.) and Munir Ahmad (given up P.W.).

12. Six parcels pertaining to various items taken into possession on 26‑1‑1987 and the two parcels relating to the items taken into possession on 27‑1‑1987 were handed over by the Investigating Officer to Mohammad Hussain Moharrir P.W.2, who kept the same in the Police Malkhana till 1‑2‑1987, when he delivered the same to Mohammad Ali F.C. P.W.1 for transmission to the Chemical Examiner, Lahore. The said parcels were delivered at the office of the Chemical Examiner on 2‑2‑1987. The report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.S. and that of the Serologist Exh.P.T. show that all the items sent under the said eight sealed parcels were found to be stained with human blood.

13. After the investigation, the challan against both the accused was sent up.

14. At the trial the prosecution produced Zulfiqar Ali P.W,

5. Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9 and Mohammad Rashid P.W.14 to prove the motive, Mohammad Ismail P.W.10, Rukan Din P.W.11 and Mohammad motive, P.W.13 to prove the extra‑judicial confession made by Mst. Naziran accused, Abdur Rahsid F.W.8 and Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9 to prove the extra‑judicial confession made by Mohammad Farooq, accused, Fazal Karim P.W.7, Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9, Mohammad Ishaq P.W.13 and Manzoor Ahmad Shah S.I. P.W.15 in support of the recoveries and Dr. Syed Qambar Zia P.W.4 in corroboration of the medical testimony.

15. Both the accused denied al' the accusations that were levelled against them, including the extra‑‑judicial confession made by them and the recoveries alleged to have been effected at their instance. Mohammad Farooq, accused, in iris statement under section 342, Cr.P.C., stated that as he had refused the proposal made for the hand of his sister for Mohammad Rashid, complainant, all the witnesses who were his relatives and friends, had deposed against him due to grudge. Mst. Naziran, accused, in her statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. made a long statement. which may be reproduced here with advantage:‑ "I have been falsely involved in this case. In fact on 17‑1‑1987, I alongwith my deceased husband Faqir Muhammad, Rashid complainant and Rafiq were invited by my father‑in‑law Rukan Din to attend the Urs being celebrated on the eve of their elders at Trinda Sawaye Khan but on the same day before I and my husband left for Trinda my brother‑in‑law Alamgir came to me and informed that her sister Mst. Shamim had given birth to a pre‑mature child and was in severe trouble and suffering sever pain also and that she should accompany him to look after Mst. Shamim at Noorwali. Accordingly, I accompanied my brother‑in‑law with the permission of my husband, who assured me that he will go and attend the abovementioned Urs of the deceased elders and she should not worry about it. The next day Rashid complainant came to Noorwali in the evening and told him that after attending the abovementioned Urs the Faqir Muhammad her husband had returned alone to Rahimyar Khan at late night. That the shop of her husband was not opened. On account of curiosity .I went to the house of Faqir Muhammad but that too was locked. I hurriedly came back to Rahimyar Khan, obtained the keys of my house from Mst. Sharifan the sister of complainant deceased, which were given to Mst. Sharifan by my deceased husband. I lived in my house and awaited the arrival and searched for my husband. My children who had gone to Urs earlier also came back and resided with me on 24‑1‑1987. On the registration of the case I came to know this suspicion of murder of my husband. In fact Rafique had borrowed Rs.50,000 from my deceased husband to run a business in partnership with Rashid. My husband pressed them to return the amount, but Rashid and Rafique put it off. Due to this, Rashid and Rafique had quarrelled with her husband. The relations of my husband. with Rashid and Rafique had become strained. That is why initially police suspected Rashid and Rafique and made them to join the investigation for the murder of my husband for 3/4 days. The story against me has been concoted by Rashid and Rafique, with the help of S.H.O: Muhammad Akram, who is their close friend. I had absolutely no link with co‑accused Farooq and neither there was any with the said Farooq. I had not made any extra‑judicial confession to any body. Even the alleged recoveries are false and have been planted to create false circumstantial evidence against me. Actually there was general rumour that wild animals, dogs, etc. were digging and scratching the earth containing the dead body of my husband and upon this information the police had reached the spot and dug out the said dead body. I am totally innocent. My deceased husband had been murdered by Rafique and Rashid in order to eat the borrowed money. Now my house and household articles, including ornaments etc. are in the possession of Rashid and Rafique."

16. The learned trial Judge, relying upon the motive, the extra -judicial confessions made by both the accused and the recoveries alleged to have been effected at their instance, convicted and sentenced them, as stated in para I above.

17. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants and the State and have also perused the record. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the appellants. First, that the F.I.R. was recorded after a great delay of seven days, which affects the prosecution story. In this respect it is submitted that Rukan Din P.W.11, the father of Faqir Mohammad deceased, came to know of the disappearance of his son on the third day and the others also likewise came to know of the said fact but none of them cared to lodge the F.I.R. till after a lapse of seven days. It is submitted that since Rukan Din P.W.11 was trying to protect his son Mohammad Rashid P.W.14 and his nephew P.W.9, who had taken a loan of Rs.50,000 from the deceased and were not paying it back, delay assumes special significance. Second, that the story as given in the extra‑judicial confession is unnatural and unbelievable. In this connection it is submitted that the nature of injuries on the deceased show that more than two types of weapons were used and since the thumb of the deceased was severed and his testicles were found to be swollen, it appears that a fight took place, where he was brutally injured by more than two persons. It is further submitted that the extra‑judicial confessions were not made before the discovery of the dead body, for the inquest report Exh.P.R. shows that the Investigating Officer had opined the first injury on the deceased to be by fire‑arm. It is submitted that had the extra‑judicial confessions been made earlier, the Investigating Officer would not have taken the risk of describing any of the injuries on the dead body of the deceased as being by fire‑arm. Since one of the injuries on the dead body of the deceased has been described to be by fire‑arm by the investigating Officer in his inquest report, it is submitted that the body was discovered much before the extra‑judicial confessions were alleged to have been made. Third, that the accused were in police custody just before the recoveries were made and they were taken from the Police Station to the place of recoveries and not from the house of Faqir Mohammad, deceased, to the place of recoveries, as suggested. In this connection the statement of Mohammad Ali F.C. P.W.1 made in cross‑examination that he was present when the dead body was recovered and that two/three police officials and the accused had gone from the Police Station and fifty persons were present at the spot and the statement of Fazal Karim Khan P.W.7 made in cross‑examination that he had seen the accused under arrest in the Police Station and that he could not exactly say after how many days of the arrest the accused got recovered the dead body, may be it was ten/twelve hours, have been read out. Fourth, that the defence of the appellants that some animals had dug out the dead body, whereafter the police came to know about the murder of Faqir Mohammad, deceased appears to be plausible. In this connection the fact that the skin of the dead body had peeled off, when it was discovered, is pressed into service to show that the same had been peeled off by the dogs. Fifth and last that the extra‑judicial confession is the weakest piece of evidence and should not be accepted in the present case, in the absence of evidence showing that the deceased was last seen with the two accused some time on the night of 17‑1‑1987.

18. The first submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant does not carry any weight. It appears some time was taken by the close relatives of the deceased to trace him and when they failed, Mohammad Rashid P.W.14, the brother of the deceased, lodged the F.I.R. It is suggested on behalf of the appellants that as Mohammad Rashid P.W.14 and Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9 had borrowed Rs.50,000 from the deceased., which they were not paying back, and to cover up the murder of the deceased by the said two persons, the F.I.R. was lodged at a late stage, cannot be accepted with any degree of safety. The suggestion that the said two witnesses had taken any loan is denied. No unequivocal evidence has come on the record from independent sources to confirm this situation. Mat. Naziran is not only the daughter‑in‑law of Rukan Din P.W.11, but a daughter of one of his brothers. The parties are so closely related that if any attempt had been made to foist a false case on Mst. Naziran, the other brothers of Rukan Din P.W.11 and their family members would have come to the aid of Mst. Naziran, appellant. Nothing, therefore, turns on this objection, which is dismissed. With regard to the second submission raised on behalf of the appellants, the incised injuries on the deceased do not unequivocally show that two types of sharp‑edged weapons were used. The exterior examination of the injuries does not appear to have been carried out very carefully, as those injuries which have been described as scalp deep or bone deep have fractures and cuts underneath. In the extra‑judicial confessions made by the two appellants, both clearly state that a hatchet was used by Mohammad Farooq, appellant, and there is no reference of a Kassi being used by him, though Mohammad Farooq, appellant states that he threw away a Kassi in a ditch, after the occurrence when he had buried the dead body. Assuming even, for a matter of argument, that he used only one weapon i.e. hatchet, it is not necessary that he used the hatchet effectively and heavily for each injury. Nothing, therefore, serious turns on the fact that some of the sharp‑edged injuries did not have fractured bones underneath. As regards the submission that since the Investigating Officer described one of the injuries on the dead body as being by fire‑arm, it must be concluded that the extra‑judicial confessions were made later, the same cannot be accepted. There is strong evidence from unimpeachable sources which shows that the extra‑judicial confessions were made early in the morning on 26‑1‑1987, whereas the dead body was recovered much after 11‑00 a.m. If the Investigating Officer found the exterior shape of a wound as giving him the impression that it was by a fire‑arm and he so mentioned it, the case of the prosecution does not suffer merely because his view has proved incorrect. In the absence of strong supporting evidence, no unequivocal inference can be drawn from one small item of evidence alluded to by the learned counsel for the appellants, so as to shake the whole case of the prosecution. This submission, therefore, is rejected. With regard to the third, submission, one thing is clear that both the appellants were produced before the Investigating Officer when he happened to be outside the house of Faqir Mohammad, deceased. It is likely that after this, the police may have repaired themselves to the Police Station for a short time before taking Muhammad Farooq, appellant, to effect the recovery of the dead body, but even if it is believed that he was produced by Abdul Rashid P.W.8 and Muhammad Rafiq P.W.9 first at the police station, from where he was taken to effect the recovery of the dead body, the discrepancy would not seriously damage the prosecution version. In these circumstances, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants does not carry any weight. With regard to the fourth submission raised on behalf of the appellants, the same is rejected outright. The mere fact that the dead body, when it wax disinterred, was found to have its skin peeled, is not indicative of the fact that the skin was peeled off by dogs or other animals. The skin peels off through decomposition. The doctor did not find any marks or scratches to indicate that animals had scraped, eaten or torn any part of the flesh. With regard to the fifth and last submission, it is true that an extra‑judicial confession must be subjected to close scrutiny, before it is accepted, but there is nothing in law to indicate that where evidence of the deceased having been last seen with the accused is not present, it cannot be accepted, with other corroborative evidence. The testimony as regards the extra‑judicial confession having been made by the two appellants is furnished by witnesses who have basically no enmity with the appellants and it is, therefore, not possible to reject their testimony.

19. Apart from the above, we have examined the case in depth. The motive in this case is furnished by Zulfiqar Ali P.W.5 and Mohammad Rashid P.W.14. The former happens to be the nephew of the deceased whereas the latter is the brother of the deceased. All clearly have shown that the two appellants had cultivated immoral relations and That Muhammad Farooq, appellant, visited the house of Mst. Naziran, appellant, during periods when her husband was away at work. Mohammad Rashid P.W.14 has clearly stated in his evidence that Faqir Mohammad, deceased, had told them about this intimacy and had stopped Mst. Naziran, appellant, in his presence, from having anything to do with Mohammad Farooq, appellant, and a quarrel had ensued, where Mst. Naziran, appellant, had insisted that Mohammad Farooq, appellant, would come to their house. It is true that the two witnesses are related, but as stated earlier, there is nothing on the record to suggest that they had any particular reason to falsely implicate any of the appellants. The motive, therefore, cannot be brushed aside and must be accepted as‑ a strong piece of evidence.

20. The evidence as regards Mst. Naziran having made an extra judicial confession is furnished by Mohammad Ismail P.W.10, Rukan Din P.W.11 and Mohammad Ishaque P.W.13 and that made by Mohammad Farooq, appellant, is furnished by Abdul Rashid P.W.8 and Mohammad Rafique P.W.9. Mohammad Ismail P.W.10 is a totally independent witness. Rukah Din P.W.11 is the father of the deceased, Mohammad Ishaq P.W.13 is a cousin of the deceased, Abdul Rashid P.W.8 is a brother of Rukah Din P.W.11 and Muhammad Rafique is a nephew of the deceased. Mst. Naziran, appellant; made a confession at Trinda Sawaye Khan. She had specially gone to beg for forgiveness from Rukan Din P.W.11, her father‑in‑law. It is understandable that she went to her father‑in‑law, as she had wronged her son. The evidence of the three witnesses is natural and convincing. Muhammad Farooq, I appellant, admitted his guilt before Abdul Rashid P.W.8 and Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9 in Rahimyar Khan himself. He obviously went to Abdul Rashid P.W.8, as he was a brother of Rukan Din P.W.11, who was the father of the deceased. None of these two witnesses has any enmity with Farooq, appellant. In fact the parties are so closely related and there is no serious rift between them, that it is not possible to believe that anybody would subscribe to any form of false evidence against the appellants. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the extra‑judicial confessions were made by Mst. Naziran and Muhammad Farooq, appellants, as stated, that they were freely and voluntarily made by them, without any pressure having been put on them and that they are not tainted by any technical defect.

21. The recovery of the dead body of the deceased at the instance of Muhammad Farooq, appellant, and the blood‑stained earth from the said spot on 26‑1‑1987 and the recovery of the blood‑stained clothes P.8 and P.9 of Muhammad Farooq, appellant, and the identity card P.10, watch P.11, purse P.12 and a bunch of keys P.14/1‑4 belonging to Faqir Mohammad, deceased, at the instance of Muhammad Farooq, appellant, on 27‑1‑1987, act as strong incriminatory pieces of evidence against the said appellant. The said recoveries are deposed by Fazal Karim Khan P.W.7, Mohammad Rafiq P.W.9 and Manzoor Ahmad Shah S1 P.W.15. Fazal Karim P.W.7 is an independent witness. Mohammad Rafique P.W.9, as stated earlier, is a nephew of the deceased and Manzoor Ahmad Shah P.W.15 had no axe to grind against any of the appellants. In these circumstances, their evidence, which is natural and convincing, can be safely accepted without any reservation. These recoveries act as strong incriminatory pieces of evidence showing the participation of Muhammad Farooq, appellant, in the murder of Faqir Mohammad deceased.

22. The recovery of blood scrappings from the room of the house of the deceased and the blood‑stained cot P .18, the blood‑stained quilt, the blood‑stained bed‑sheets P.20 and P.23, the blood‑stained shoes of the deceased P.21/1‑2, the blood‑stained Khais P.22, two blood‑stained towels P.24 and P.25 and the blood‑stained clothes of Mst. Naziran, appellant, from the room in her house, act as strong incriminatory pieces of evidence showing that the murder was committed in her house, when the deceased was sleeping on one of the cots, and during which occurrence her clothes got blood‑stained. The evidence as regards the said recoveries is furnished by Mohammad Ishaque P.W.13 and Manzoor Ahmad Shah S.I. P.W.15. Mohammad Ishaque P.W.13 is a cousin of the deceased. There is nothing to indicate that he had any enmity with any of the appellants. Manzoor Ahmad Shah P.W.15 also had no particular axe to grind against any of the appellants. The testimony of both these witnesses is natural and convincing and cannot be rejected on any account whatsoever.

23. The upshot of the above discussion is that the motive, the extra‑judicial confessions made by Mst. Naziran and Muhammad Farooq appellants, the recovery of the dead body of Faqir Mohammad, deceased, the blood‑stained hatchet P.6, the blood‑stained clothes P.8 and P.9 of Mohammad Farooq, appellant and personal effects of the deceased P.10 to P.14/1‑4, all at the instance of Mohammad Farooq, appellant, and the recovery of the blood scrappings from the floor, the blood‑stained personal effects P.19 to P.25 lying in the room where the deceased was murdered and the blood‑stained clothes P.26 and P.27 of Mst. Naziran, appellant, all at the instance of Mst. Naziran, appellant, conclusively show, without any shadow of doubt,: that Muhammad Farooq and Mst. Naziran, appellants, both planned and executed the murder of Faqir Muhammad, deceased. The conviction and sentences of the appellants are, therefore, legal and correct. There being no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed. M.Y.H./M‑801/L Appeal dismissed.