1997SCMR476 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑‑This Criminal Appeal by leave of the Court arises from the facts that in the occurrence which took place on 6‑9‑1988 at 4‑00 p.m. in the house of Gulzar Ahmed complainant situate Muhallah Eidgah, Village Kunjah at a distance of four furlongs from Police Station Kunjah, District Gujrat, Mst. Irshad Bibi appellant allegedly killed Shafqat Gulzar aged 2‑1/2 years son of Gulzar Ahmed complainant with Clhhurri in the presence of Gulzar Ahmed P.W.3, Muhammad Yousaf P.W.4, Muhammad Akram P.W., Mst. Ansar Bibi P.W. (both not produced) who apprehended her with blood‑stained Chhurri in her hands, on the spot. On the report Exh. PC of Gulzar Ahmed, a case under section 302, P.P.C.. was registered by Hassan Akhtar S.I./S.H.O. P.W.6, at Police Station Kunjah can the same day at 5‑30 p.m. After the registration of the case, Hassan Akhtar reached the place of occurrence where Gulzar Ahmed complainant produced tmlood stained Chhurri P.1 which was taken into possession vide Memo. Exh:.P.E. attested by Muhammad Yousaf P.W.4 and Muhammad Akram (not produced). Mst. Irshad Bibi appellant was also produced before Hassan Akhtar S.‑I. P.W.6 who arrested her. The report of Serologist Exh.P.M. revealed that the Cthhurri was stained with human blood.

2. Mst. Irshad Bibi appellant is the wife of Muhammad Afzal, brother of Gulzar Ahmed complainant. Muhammad Afzal and Gulzar Ahmed alongwith their wives were living in the same house. The motive allegedly was that the appellant was a woman of easy virtue, so she was reprimanded by the complainant for pursuing her immoral activities. The complainant had also restrained her from going outside the house. Hence this murder.

3. Dr. Abbas Tahir P.W.2 conducted post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Shafqat Gulzar and found one incised wound measuring about 10 x 2 cm across the middle and front of the neck below the hoyid bone cutting all the corresponding structures which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

4. Prosecution produced eight witnesses in all. Gulzar Ahmed P.W.3 and Muhammad Yousaf P.W.4 claim to have seen the appellant killing the deceased with Chhurri Exh.P.i. They also claim to have apprehended her on the spot alongwith Chhurri P.1. They stated that at the eventful time, they were sitting in a room at a distance of 26 feet from the place of murder. On hearing the shrieks of the child they were attracted to the spot where, they found the appellant butchering the deceased child with Chhurri P.1 and apprehended her red‑handed and produced her with blood‑stained Chhurri P.1 before Hassan Akhtar, S.‑I. P.W.6. Hassan Akhtar supported them. Dr. Abbas Tahir has proved the post‑mortem examination report. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

5. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., the appellant denied all incriminating evidence and circumstances, raising the plea of false implication and her substitution in place of Mst. Surrayya, she has stated:‑‑ "My father is a poor man who did not like to give my hand in marriage to Afzal who then had pressurised him who was then forced to marry me with Afzal whose wish was to bring me to his house once. Muhammad Afzal used to have quarrel with his other four brothers and as such all the five had also once assaulted my father. All the five brothers then committed this occurrence and so falsely implicated me in this case. In fact the child was done to death by Mst. Surriyya wife of Yousaf P.W. I had seen Mst. Surriyya committing Zina with my husband and because of the same Mst. Surriyya was aggrieved of against the mother of the kid so she committed this occurrence." In defence no witness was produced. She also declined to give evidence on oath in disproof of the charge against her.

6. Believing motive, ocular evidence, recovery of blood‑stained Chhurri and the medical evidence, learned Sessions Judge Gujrat, vide his judgment dated 25‑4‑1989, convicted her under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced her to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.500 or in default to further three months' R.I. The appeal filed by her against her conviction and sentence was dismissed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, on 17‑6‑1991 vide impugned judgment. Feeling aggrieved thereby Mst. Irshad Bibi filed a petition for leave to appeal from jail which was granted on 30‑12‑1993 to reappraise the evidence and the circumstances appearing in the case.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the eye‑witnesses are closely related to the deceased; that they were inimical towards the appellant; that they were sitting in a room far away from the place of occurrence and it was not possible for them to see the infliction of the injury on reaching the spot on hearing the shrieks of the child; that at the time of occurrence, all members of family were at home, so it was hardly the time for a murderer to commit the crime; that the appellant being a woman would not choose Chhurri as a weapon of offence and the likely mode for her would be to poison or to strangulate the child; and that the deceased was in fact killed by Mst. Surrayya, the wife of Muhammad Yousaf P.W. but the appellant was involved in the case falsely to save Mst. Surrayya. Learned Additional Advocate‑General has appeared for the State and has supported the impugned judgment.

8. We have carefully attended to the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the evidence on record end circumstances appearing in the case. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. Gulzar Ahmed and Muhamrhad Yousaf are the residents of the house where the child was done to death. Gulzar Ahmed is the real father of the deceased. Muhammad Yousaf is the paternal uncle of the deceased. Mst. Irshad Bibi used to live in the same house. So, the presence of the accused appellant as well as the eye‑witnesses was quite natural. Muhammad Yousaf P.W.4 had seen the appellant entering the room where the child was sleeping just before the murder. Gulzar Ahmed and Muhammad Yousaf were sitting at a distance of 26 feet away from the place of occurrence. They could easily see the commission of the crime on reaching the place of occurrence on hearing the shrieks of the child. Mst. Irshad Bibi is the wife of their real brother Muhammad Afzal. Except the statement of the appellant there is nothing in evidence to show that the appellant had seen Mst. Surrayya the wife of Muhammad Yousaf committing Zina with Muhammad Afzal. There is nothing on record to show that Mst. Surrayya was in any manner annoyed with the parents of the child. No foundation for the substitution of the appellant in place of Mst. Surrayya has been laid down. There is nothing in evidence to show that the child was not killed at the time and the place as stated by the prosecution. The report of Serologist shows that Chhurri P.1 was stained with human blood. Medical evidence also shows that the deceased was killed with sharp‑edged weapon. The defence case is that Mst. Surrayya, who again is a woman, had killed the deceased with Chhurri. If Mst. Surrayya could choose Chhurri as a weapon of offence, then why can't the appellant. The prosecution evidence has been believed by the two Courts below. There appears no reason for the substitution of the appellant in place of Mst. Surrayya by the complainant, the real father of the deceased child. The prosecution case does not suffer from any genuine doubt flowing from evidence or circumstances of the case.

9. The upshot of the above discussion is that there being no merit, the appeal is dismissed. N.H.Q./1‑245/S Appeal dismissed.