1977 P Cr (PLP)

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that Mst. Ayesha had been married to the appellant in early fifties, and lived with him. There were some children from the marriage. It is alleged that in or about the month of July 1972, the appellant had left Mst. Ayesha and her children at the house of his brother‑in‑law, by the name of Ramzan, who lived in the village of the complainant, that is, Khuda Bukhsh, the brother of Mst. Ayesha. The appellant lived in a village some three miles away. It is alleged that, on or about the 15th of July 1972, Khuda Bukhsh, the brother of Mst. Ayesha, had brought his sister and the children to his house. The appellant had, all of a sudden, turned up at the house of Khuda Bukhsh oil 18‑7‑1972 at about 11‑00 a.m, and enquired from Mst. Ayesha as to why she had come to the house of her brother without his permission. Mst. Ayesha had got up to leave with the appellant, but that did not satisfy him. The appellant had taken out a pistol front the folds of his trouser, and fired at Mst. Ayesha on her chest. Mst. Ayesha fell down, and died soon thereafter. The appellant vas apprehended by Khuda Bukhsh and his son Ghulam Hyder. In the meantime, some other person s bad also turned tip from the neighbourhood. The pistol, along with a live cartridge, was secured from his possession, leaving the appellant in tile custody of these persons, Khuda Bukhsh had proceeded to the Dadu Police Station, and lodged the first Information Report. A. S. I. Abdur Rehman had proceeded to the 'wardat', and secured the blood‑stained earth there from, along with a wad of a cartridge, which was lying there. A 'Mashirnama' was prepared in that context. Then came the inquest report. The appellant was present at the 'Otak' of Habibullah, which was in front of the house of the complainant, and was produced before him. He came to be arrested. P. W. Ghulam Hyder had then produced the country‑made pistol, along with a live and empty cartridge, which came to be secured under a 'Mashirnama', and duly sealed. Thereafter, enquiries were made from Ghulam Hyder, Hussain, Khair Muhammad and other persons. As the appellant could not produce any licence for the pistol, the A. S. I. lead lodged a separate report on return at the Police "Station. The empty cartridge and the pistol were sent to the Ballistic Expert, and the case, later on came to be challaned in Court.

3. The appellant in his statement at the Court of Enquiry contented himself by denying all the allegations made against him, and, all that he had to say was, that he would give his further statement at the trial. At the trial, he maintained that Khuda Bukhsh had taken away his wife and children front the house of Ramzan with his (the appellant's) permission, and not with the consent of Ramzan. He admitted that Khuda Bukhsh had produced the pistol and the cartridge before the Police, and that he also bad been Handed to the Police at the `Otak' of Habibullah. Inter alia, he had the following to say:‑ "I was married to Mst. Ayesha about 18 years ago. I have got 3 sons and one daughter from her. I was in my village. I then went to house of 'Khuda Bux. I stow and lived with Ramzan for 10/15 days, my wife and children s were living with me in the house of Ramzan; Khuda Bux came and got the permission from me to take my wife and, children. I permitted him to take my wife and children. He took them to his house. Khuda Bux demanded hand of my daughter; my wife told them that they should make demand from me. After 3 days I went to house of Khuda Bux and bring my wife and children home. Khuda Bux; squired me to allow them to stay for the night and asked me to come next day morning. I returned to my village. I proceeded: to village of Khuda Bux on next day at 8 or 9 a.m. When I arrive; in the Otak of Khuda Bux I found police already there with Khuda Bux, Ghulam Hyder, Imamuddin and Hussain. I was called in the, Otak. The police detained me. I protested that such accuse,' murdered my wife."

4. The death of Mst. Ayesha, as a result of shooting, remains admitted on all hands. Dr. Radhomal, who had held the autopsy, found the following injuries on her person: ‑ (1) Gunshot wounds of entrance six in number in diameter each front of chest. Three on right side 32" below medial and of clavicle and 3 on left side 3" below inner of clavicle. 1 lateral to median to plane very close to each other with charring of their edges. (2) One gunshot wound of exit 1/3 in diameter on right side back of the chest 2" below lower angle of right scapulae. The injuries, which were ante‑mortem, according to the Medical Officer, had been caused from firearm. According to him, death, which would have bee instantaneous, had occurred as a result of shock and haemorrhage.

5. The eye‑witness account has come from Khuda Bukhsh and Ghulam Hyder. Khuda Bukhsh is the brother of Mst. Ayesha and Ghulam Hyde is his son. Both of them have spoken with one voice about the circumstance in which Mst. Ayesha had been brought to the house of Khuda Bukhsh the appearance of the appellant just at the time of incident, and the fatal shooting. The suggestion in the cross‑examination was, that Mst. Ayesha had died at the hands of Khuda Bukhsh himself, which, of course, came to be denied. Apart from them, there is the evidence of Muhammad Hussain. Who is a close relation of Khuda Bukhsh. His house is opposite to the house of the complainant, and he had heard the pistol shot being fired. He state to have gone running to the complainant's house, and found the appellant i the custody of Ghulam Hyder and Khuda Bukhsh. Even at that time the pistol was with the appellant, and was snatched in his presence, along with a cartridge. Then, he mentions the details of the incident, as furnished by Khuda Bukhsh and Ghulam Hyder. There is nothing worth‑while in hip cross‑examination. Then, there is the evidence of Imamuddin; to whoa Khuda Bukhsh had broken the news of the incident before he proceeded to the Police Station. He was living two furlongs away from the complainant's village. He states that he had accompanied the complainant to the `Wardat', and had seen the appellant sitting tied in the `Otak'. Suggestion was made that the complainant was his `Hari', but he denied the same. There is hardly any material to pause and doubt the veracity of his version. The appellant also admits the presence of these two witnesses.

6. It is to be seen that the appellant, even at the Court of Enquiry, had not a word iii regard to tile circumstances in which Mst. Ayesha came to be murdered. There is no reason as to why he should have kept his mouth shut and not given his version. He admits that Mst. Ayesha had gone to visit the house of the complainant, along with her children. There is no earthly reason made out as to why the complainant should have objected to Mst. Ayesha going with her husband, either to his house, or even to the house of Ramzan. Anyway, the version let fall by the appellant at the trial is rather bizarre. He states to have gone to Khuda Bukhsh to bring his wife the day earlier, and he had promised to send her and the children along with him the next day. The next day when he goes, he finds the Police party sitting at the complainant's house, and Mst. Ayesha already dead. To accept this version is too much of a demand on ones credulity. If, for any reason, Khuda Bukhsh was trot agreeable to the return of Mst. Ayesha and the children to the appellant, it was not necessary to kill her. Imamuddin and Hussain, who had no bias whatsoever against the appellant, contradict the version of the appellant. Looking to the rival versions in juxta position, it is clear that the assertion on the part of the appellant, as put forward at the trial, was a naive one, after a deep recollection in tranquillity. It appears that the appellant was chagrined at Mst. Ayesha and her children' laving the house of Ramzan and going to stay at the house of her brother, and decided to have done with her.

7. The case against the appellant on both the counts has been established beyond all reasonable doubts. I therefore, affirm the conviction and sentence and dismiss the appeal. G. M. SHAH, J.‑I agree. Appeal dismissed.