1980 P Cr (PLP)

AGHA ALI HYDER, J.‑‑The appellant was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Tharpakar at Mirpurkhas, for an offence under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death. There is a reference as required under the law for the confirmation of the death sentence. He was also convicted for an offence under section 326, P. P. C. and the sentence for that,, is 5 years' R. I. He has now come in appeal. Both the reference and the appeal will be disposed of by this judgment. Mst. Khadijan was married to the appellant about a year before the incident and another sister of hers by the name of Ghulam Fatima was married to the brother of appellant. The appellant was living separately in village Bhudo Kambrani. Both the sisters had come to their parents' house for the observance of Urs ceremonies on the 28th of March, 1976. The appellant had gone to fetch his wife thereafter. On the night of the 30th of March, Msr. Khadijan had complained to her father that the appellant used to collect some questionable people at the house. The next morning Lakhano, the father of Mst. Khadijan, and Ghulam Kadir, the brother had gone to attend their duties. The appellant wanted Mst. Khadijan to accompany him to his house. Mst. Khadijan had sought permission to be allowed to live another 10/12 days by which time Mst. Ghulam Fatima was expecting the delivery. That was the wish of the family in the con versation held the night before. The appellant was infuriated by the re fusal of Mst. Khadijan to accompany him and started showering hatchet blows: Mst. Allah Bachai, the mother, who tried to shield the child, herself received a number of injuries. The cries of the woman attracted Ghulam Kadir, and two neighbours, Muhammad Moosa and Jummo. Ghulam Kadir had gone to his father and apprised him of the happening. Lakhano had later gone to the Tando Jan Mohammad out post and lodged the report at 10 a. m. A.S. I. Abdul Aziz, had proceeded to the vardat which was only a furlong away and prepared the Mashirnama of the injuries on the person of Mst. Allah Bachai. She was then sent to Digri Dispensary for treatment. Mst. Khadijan had succumbed to the injuries. The A. S. 1. prepared the inquest report and the Mashirnama of the vardat. Thereafter enquiries were made from Mst. Ghulam Fatima P. Ws. Ghulam Kadir, Moosa and Jummo.. In the meantime S.H.O. Talib Hussain, also arrived at the vardat and verified the investigation. The appellant was arrested on 1st April 1976. There was blood on the shirt ‑and the towel. The hatchet also appeared to be bloodstained. All these articles were duly secured under a Moshirnama. After due investigation the case came to be challaned in the Court. The appellant in his statement at the trial .Court denied the various allegations made against him. He maintained that the murder had been committed by one Muhammad to whom Mst. Khadijan earlier had been betrothed, and he had been maliciously substituted. Dr. Muhammad Ishaque, found as many as six incised injuries on the dead body of Mst. Khadijan. According to him all these injuries' had been caused by some sharp‑edged weapon such as a hatchet, and injuries 1, 4 and 5 were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Mst. Allah Bacha also had 6 injuries. She was in the hospital for a period of 20 days and was not able to follow the ordinary pursuits of life. The eye‑witness account in the case, has been furnished by Ust. Allah Rachai, Mst. Ghulam Fatima and Ghulam Kadir. Moosa and Jummo, had turned up a little later, the version of Lakhano was only derivative in nature, Mst. Allah Bachai has stated that her daughter had come to her house in connection with the Urs ceremony. The appellant had also come the night proceeding the incident to take her away. However, Lakhano had wished that she be allowed to stay for another 10/12 days, because of the expected birth of a child in the family. She also referred to the com plaint of Mst. Khadijan about the visit of some loafers in the house. She testified that when to the morning, the appellant repeated the request, Mst. Khadijan had showed her reluctance to accompany him. The refusal had raised the ire of the appellant and he bad started inflicting hatchet blows on his wife. She had tried to come to the rescue of her daughter and was felled to the ground by repeated hatchet blows. She had regained her consciousness in the hospital where she had remained for a number of weeks. The version furnished by Mst. Ghulam Fatima is to the same effect except that she is reticent about the complaint of her sister to the family members the night before. Ghulam Kadir at the time of the trouble happened to be in the latrine, some paces away. He states that he had come back to the house as he had to collect some important papers which he had left behind though that is not to be found in the statement under section 164, Cr. P. C. Mst. Allah Bachai as would be seen had re ceived a number of injuries. Even the presence of Mst. Ghulam Fatima cannot be open to any doubt. It is not denied that there was an Urs ceremony a few days before and that she was expecting to deliver a child. It is true that Ghulam Kadir had left the house earlier but as he was in a private service as a Napa Munshi, his return to the house may not be to tally untrue, the distance being not much. The fact that the return to the house and some other small details are not to be found in the statement under section 164, Cr. P.C. will not be enough. His presence at the rele vant moment is also vouched by Moosa and Jummo. I am satisfied that they are witnesses of truth. Then there is the evidence of Moosa and Jummo who are neighbours. The former is a retired Inspector of Town Committee and thereafter doing sundry jobs. The latter is a labourer. They state to have been attracted by the pandemonium raised. Moosa mentions that Mst. Khadijan was lying on the ground, while Allah Bachai, was trying to protect her. He states that he kept away as a result of the threat extended to him by the appellant. It is however, true that there is no. mention of these injuries being inflicted, to his seeing, in his statement under section 164, Cr. P.C. There are no other omissions, in regard to the seeing of the appellant with the hatchet and the rest. This is also the testimony of Jummo, with Simi lar omission in the earlier statement. Nothing smacks of bias or partisan ship. Their testimony fully corroborates the version furnished by the witness referred to earlier. The evidence of the recovery of the blood‑stained articles has been rejected by the trial Court. What weighed with the trial Court was that the mashir who was a relation of the complainant did not support the pro secution case and the other mashir was a Police Constable, though it was not difficult to find an independent mashir. Any way the case against the appellant is fully established. Mst. Khadijan met a tragic end, for no fault of hers, and for the reasons ash mentioned by the witnesses. I have no hesitation in holding that it was the appellant who was the author of the crimes. There are no extenuating circumstances. As a result I will accept the reference and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.