1977 P Cr (PLP)

MUSHTAK ALI KAZI, J.‑The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar, for offence under section 302, P. P. C. for having caused death of his wife Mst. Razia and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The appellant who was a teacher in Government Comprehensive High School, Mirpurkhas had married deceased Mst. Razia 16 or 17 years before this incident. They resided together at Bhansinghabad, Mirpurkhas and had 7 children born to them, the husband and wife did not, however, maintain cordial relation and on account of constant quarrels Mst. Razia used to leave her own house and go and stay with her brother Mohammad Anwer who resided at Deh 190, Taluka Digri. For the last occasion Mst. Razia bad left the house of her husband in April, 1974 and she was then brought back by the appellant. Thereafter appellant claimed that he had to spend Rs. 15,000 over her restoration and he pressed Mst. Razia to get hint that amount from her brother Mohammad Anwer. This demand was however, most unfair and Mst. Razia showed her inability to meet that demand. The appellant, therefore, kept beating her and maltreating her on that account.

3. The incident of murder took place on 28‑5‑1974 at about 5 p. m. 9n the evening. On that day the appellant repeated his demand for the money spent by him on her restoration and started beating his wife inside the room of his house. After giving her a severe beating which lasted for some hours, and not being satisfied still the appellant inserted the handle of the hatchet inside the vagina of his wife and pressed it with such a force that the stick penetrated the vaginal wall and reptured the peritoneum. Finding her condition to be precarious the appellant asked his son Hafeez aged 13 years to go and bring Khalil Compounder from the Civil Hospital, Mirpurkhas. He in fact wrote out a small chit and gave it to his son for delivering the same to Khalil. This chit reads as under "My dear Mr. Khalil. The mother of Hafeez is seriously ill, perhaps she has swelling on her navel and stomach has swollen due to pain. There is serious pain. You may kindly bring some doctor. ???? Your friend Muhammad Hanif. ???? 28‑5‑74. " Since no doctor could be made available Khalil Compounder & X‑ray Technician accompanied Hafeez to his house. He came and saw the condi?tion of Mst. Razia and after feeling her pulse he declared her to be dead. The appellant told Khalil that he had given two or three fists blows to his wife as she wanted to leave his house on the pretext of having stomachache. Khalil, however, advised the appellant to inform the police. They appellant, however, asked him that it was none of his business to give him any advice. Appellant then put all the children in the other room and locked them up. By about 5 a. m. he despatched the children by bus to his sister at Jamesabad. Meanwhile appellant with the help of Mohammad Haneef Tongawalla who was his neighbour and some others got a grave dug and he carried the body of his wife with clothes on and put the body in the grave and buried it.

4. Boy Hafeez who had been sent by the appellant to the house of his sister at Jamesabad slipped out of the house and managed to reach Tando Jan Mohammad where his maternal uncle Anwer resided. He informed Anwer as to what had happened to his mother. They both went to the house of the appellant at Mirpurkhas next morning but the house was found locked. Anwer then made inquiries from Compounder Khalil about the condition of his sister. He then went and lodged report at Town Police Station, Mirpurkhas on 30‑5‑1974 at 7‑00 p. m.

5. Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, S. H. O., registered the F. I. R. and started investigation. He proceeded to the house of the appellant at Bhansinghabad, Mirpurkhas and after breakings open the lock he went inside and inspected the same in presence of mashirs. The niwar cot lying in one of the rooms was found to be stained with blood. There were also blood stains on the wall between the two rooms. S. H. O. then recorded statements of Mst. Rukhsana daughter of the appellant and Mst. Sakina sister of the appellant. He arrested the appellant on the night between 31st of May and 1st of June at about 12‑

15. The appellant then pointed out the grave in presence of the mashirs. A guard was placed at the grave for the night. Next morning the body was exhumed in presence of Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Mirpurkhas. There was no coffin cloth but the body had the ordinary clothes on. The post‑mortem examination was then conducted by the medical officer on the dead body after it had been identified by Muhammad Anwer brother of the deceased and the children. The S. H. O. then recorded statements of several witnesses and on 3‑6‑1974 he produced the appellant before S. D. M., Mirpurkhas for recording of his judicial confession. After his confession the appellant was remanded to judicial custody. On 17‑6‑1974 the appellant was challaned.

6. The appellant in his examination under section 342 before the committing Magistrate admitted that he had killed his wife but stated that he had done so on account of ghairat and not because she declined to meet her demand for Rs. 15,

000. The appellant also admitted having made the judicial confession but stated that a few things in that confession had been mentioned at the instance of the Police. The appellant also admitted that the body of his wife was exhumed had been identified by her brother Anwer. At his trial in the Court of Session the appellant further stated that his wife had eloped with one Rata Langbani and he had recovered her after great difficulty; that on the day of the incident when he returned to his house he found his neighbour Liaquat with his wife and both wore naked. Liaquat made good his escape. He, however, picked up a hatchet and struck her with the backside of the hatchet on her genitals. She, however, became semi‑conscious and complained of swelling over the stomach and afterwards she died.

7. The incident is accordingly admitted and the appellant has also admitted that he killed his wife by giving her blows with the handle of the hatchet on her genitals. The medical evidence of Dr. Pardhan shows that Mst. Razia had sustained the following external injuries: ‑ (i) Bruise on thighs ; (ii) Lacerated wound 1" x ? " x ? " on the margin of the vagina on the left side (iii) Bruise on buttocks ; (iv) Bruise over the back ; (v) Bruise over the back of the chest extending over the scapular region ; (vi) Bruise on both sides of abdomen ; (vii) Bruise on the upper lateral. On internal examination the medical officer found that the uterus was decom?posed so much so that it was not easy to differentiate it. Loop of the small intestine was bulging out of the vagina. Posterior vaginal wall was ruptured and also the peritoneum and the surrounding tissues were congested. In the opinion of the medical officer death had resulted from shock and haemorrhage as a consequence of the injury on the posterior vaginal wall. This injury appeared to have been caused by thrusting some hard blunt weapon such as a lathi into the vagina; that this injury was individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. All the injuries appear to have been caused by a lath or the handle of the hatchet. Death must have occurred from 4 to 6 hours after the beating.

8. That the death of his wife was caused by the appellant has hardly been dispute. On this point there is the judicial confession made by the appellant himself after his arrest before the S. D. M., Mirpurkhas. In this confession the appellant stated that his wife had run away from his house and on two occasions he had to bring her back with difficulty. Two months before the incident she had eloped with one Rato Langhani. He again brought his wife back to his house at Bhansinghabad from Mirpurkhas; that his wife was of bad character and his elder son and daughter Rukhsana were also assisting her in the sin by bringing messages. On the day of the incident at 4‑00 p. m. when he came to his house he saw Liaquat Sheikh, a neighbour, committing illicit intercourse with his wife in the house. Ho tried to catch him but Liaquat escaped. Due to ghairat he picked up the hatchet and gave blows to his wife on the private part. After sometime she developed swelling so he gave a chit to his son to bring Khalil Compounder. Khalil came and examined her and found her dead. He did not report to the police as he was horrified; with the help of neighbours he got the corpse buried in the graveyard. The body was not shrouded in the coffin. Qamar Din, Haneef Tongawalla, Shafi and others helped him to bury the dead body at mid‑night. This confession appears to be voluntary and also true except the exculpatory portion regarding Mst. Razia having been found in the act of intercourse with Liaquat, neighbour. The confession can, however, be taken into consideration with regard to the inculpatory portion about the appellant having killed his wife. Regarding the question of the deceased having been found in the act of illicit intercourse there is no indication of such a thing having taken place from the evidence of appellant's daughter, his son Hafeez and the surrounding facts and circumstances. The deceased could not have possibly been enjoying herself in presence of her children inside her house at 4‑00 p. m. when it was time for the appellant to return from his school. The manner in which the murder has been committed would also show that it was not the act of some one who had lost control over himself. On the other hand it was a result of beating which lasted for 2, 3 hours and the death was caused by pressing a wooden stick inside her vagina. The neighbour Liaquat could not have possibly escaped as suggested by the appellant and on finding his wife and Liaquat naked toe appellant would have killed them both by giving them blows with sharp side of the hatchet and would not have caused the death by slow beating.

9. Apart from the judicial confession there is the ocular testimony of Mst. Rukhsana, daughter of the appellant, and his son Muhammad Hafeez. Rukhsana who is a grownup girl of about 15 years has definitely stated that she was with her mother when her father started beating her with the handle of the hatchet on various parts of her body including the private parts. He stopped beating her just when she was about to breath her last; it was then that he deputed her brother Hafeez to Khalil with a chit to bring the doctor. That her father told Khalil that he had given a few blows to his wife. P. W. Mohammad Hafeez who is aged 13 years has also deposed that his father demanded Rs. 15,00 from his mother and thereafter he gave her a beating. That all the children were in the house and that the quarrel started at 3‑00 p. m. His father started the beating during that quarrel and continued to beat his wife from 3 p. m. to 6 p. m. He had even put off the shalwar of his mother and given her the blows over her private parts. He then gave him a chit for Khalil Compounder. He went and brought Khalil but in the meawhile his mother had died. The boy has also stated that he slipped away from the house of his father's sister and had gone and informed his maternal uncle at Tando Jan Mohammad about the murder of his mother. The boy has definitely stated that Liaquat, their neighbour, never visited their house.

10. Rukhsana and Mohammad Hafeez are the children of the appellant and there is no reason why they should try to falsely implicate him in a murder case. Their evidence finds corroboration from the surrounding facts and circumstances. The appellant had first locked up his children in a room and he had then sent them away to the house of his sister at Jamesabad. He had despatched the dead body of his wife and hurried her in the grave' yard without even observing the usual ceremonies and customs of putting the body in a coffin. The body was buried with the clothes on at mid?night with the help of some friends and neighbours of the appellant.

11. It has thus been sufficiently established that the appellant had killed his wife inside his house as a result of quarrel. He had beaten her mercilessly for about 2 or 3 hours and continued to beat her till she breathed her last. The murder was committed in a very brutal and cowardly manner and the appellant had thrust a rough and hard weapon like handle of the hatchet inside the delicate part namely the vagina with such a force that the vaginal wall had been raptured and the handle had penetrated the peritoneum. Anyone who had caused such injury must have done so knowing the consequences since the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and since it was caused deliberately the offence would fall under clause (3) of section 300, P. P. C.

12. The learned Advocate for the appellant has not disputed the broad facts of this case. He has admitted that Mst. Razia was given a beating by her husband and she died as a result of it. He has, however, argued that thrusting of the handle of the hatchet in the vagina would constitute a lesser offence namely, that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and he has cited the case of Crown v. Mohammad Shafi (P L D 1954 Lah. 395) and Sher Mohammad v. The State (P L D 1959 Lah. 124) in support of his contention. In the first case cited by the learned Advocate a lathi had been thrusted in the rectum of the deceased and he bad died as a result of it. It was contended before the learned Judge that the offence would be one of causing hurt as death was not intended. It was however, observed by Shabbir Ahmed, J. that "if a person thrusts a lathi so far in the anus of another as to cause injury to the peritonium, he could be safely presumed to have at least the knowledge that he was likely to cause the death of the victim." The second case is also that of death having been caused by thrusting a dung into the anus of the deceased. It was observed in the course of the decision that the question whether the act of an accused person would constitute an offence of murder under section 302, P. P. C. or an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304, Part (11), P. P. C., is one which will be determined en the facts of each particular case, and that would depend on the nature of the injuries being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or that the act was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death.

13. In the present case, however, it is not the thrusting of some stick into the anus merely but a woman has been beaten from 4 p. m. to 6 p. m. and severe injuries have been caused to her all over the body and ultimately the handle of the hatchet has been thrust with force inside the vagina result?ing in bur death. There is the medical evidence that the ‑injury in the vagina would be individually sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The appellant in this case was an educated person and a senior, teacher who is presumed to have the knowledge of human anatomy and he must have known that the vagina was a very delicate part of the body. The appellant had intentionally caused these internal injuries to the lady and since a person is presumed to have intended the natural consequences of his act the appellant could be held guilty of murder, the offence falling under clause (3) of section 300, P. P. C. I

4. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of this case, and the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries caused we are definitely of the opinion that the act of the accused would constitute an offence of murder and not merely that of a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We accordingly maintain the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant and dismiss his appeal.

15. The operative part of the judgment has already been announced. These are the reasons that have now been recorded. MIR KHUDA BAKHSH MARRI, J.

‑I agree. Appeal dismissed.