1986 P Cr (PLP)

According to the prosecution the motive for murder was that in‑laws of the daughters of Muhammad Siddique were not treating them properly and a day before the occurrence, deceased Abdul Majid reprimanded Mubarik for insulting his mother and slapping her. Prosecution produced Muhammad Siddique, Peer Muhammad and Sadiq Ali as eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. The other evidence relates to the recovery of blood‑stained knife P.3 which was found to be stained with human blood, vide Serologist's report Exh. PL/1 and post‑mortem report. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court denied the allegation of murder but admitted that he was son of the sister of Muhammad Siddique the first informant. When questioned by the trial Court, why the case and why P.Ws deposed against him, his answer was as follows:

‑‑ "Actually, the facts are that on 10‑9‑1980, I alongwith my mother Mst. Siddiqan was going to Abdullahpur to see our relatives who are residing there. When we passed near the shop of Abdul Majid deceased which is located at main road. Abdul Majid deceased on seeing us began to abuse my mother and myself. He called my mother as prostitute and caught hold of her ponytail and dragged her in the room. I objected to this behaviour of the deceased who said that he had taken the revenge of the insult of her mother. I denied that I had insulted his mother. The deceased got annoyed and began to abuse me, he caught hold up from my neck and we grappled with each other and he fell on broken pieces of bottles. The witnesses have deposed against me due to enmity. No one was present at the spot." He declined to produce any defence witness. We shah first discuss the ocular evidence and then refer to the remaining evidence. Muhammad Siddique (P.W. 6) is the first informant. He affirmed on oath the facts which he had mentioned in his statement Exh. P.G. before the police. He repeated the story of his wife's visit to her daughter and Mubarik being offended had abused his wife and slapped her. He narrated rest of the story and admitted that the deceased Abdul Majid gave 2/3 slaps to Mubarik. He also deposed about the threat extended by Mubarik and his father and then described the incident. It was 2‑15 p.m. He was present in the shop. His son was also with him and so was Peer Muhammad father of Muhammad Siddique. Sadiq Ali was also present. Abdul Majid was busy in boiling milk when Mubarik came with knife, entered the tea stall and gave two knife blows on the left side of the chest. Thereafter Mubarik took to heels and the deceased fell down and expired. The next witness is Sadiq Ali. He stated that he had gone to the shop of Muhammad Siddique in Mohallah Abdullahpur. Many persons had gathered there. Abdul Majeed was lying murdered. He did not see any body murdering him. The Assistant District Attorney requested the Court to cross‑examine the witness because he was not telling the truth. Permission was granted. He was accordingly cross‑examined by the prosecutor. The next witness is Peer Muhammad. The deceased was his grandson. He corroborated the statement of his son Muhammad Siddique and stated that when occurrence took place he was there, because he had brought meals for Muhammad Siddique and Abdul Majid to the stall. He deposed that the accused entered with a knife in the tea stall from Street No. 13 and attacked Abdul Majid. In his presence, he gave two knife blows in the chest of Abdul Majid one after the other on the left side. Abdul Majid fell down and died. The knife was recovered on 15‑9‑1980 at the instance of appellant from his house in Street No. 1 from the ceiling of a room which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.F. The memo. was attested by Asghar Ali son of Sardar Muhammad Chohan and Muhammad Bashir son of Fazal Din. The post‑mortem was conducted by Dr. Bashir Ahmad Kahlon (P.W. 4). The doctor noted the following two injuries: (1) A stab wound 1 c.m. x c.m. going deep into the chest on the front of the left chest 3 c.m. left to the middle line and 7 c. m. inner to the left nipple at 8 O' clock position. (2) A stab wound 1 c.m. x c.m. x going deep into the chest 4 c.m. left to the middle line and 2 c.m. outer to injury No.

1. In the opinion of doctor death occurred due to injuries Nos. 1 and 2 collectively. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the first informant is the father of the deceased. Peer Muhammad is his grandfather. Both of them are closely related to the deceased. Thus, they are interested. No reliance could be placed on their testimony. Learned counsel then referred to the evidence of Sadiq Ali, who did not support the version of the aforesaid two eye‑witnesses. On the strength of his evidence, learned counsel tried to argue that even the remaining two witnesses were not present. But we do not think this contention has any force. Sadiq Ali's evidence is of no significance. He was turned hostiles. Even otherwise it was quite natural for him to say what he told the Court, because father of the appellant Shah Muhammad is his maternal‑uncle. We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Muhammad Siddique and Peer Muhammad. Both of them gave natural and convincing explanation of their presence at the place of occurrence. Mere fact that they are related inter se as well as to the deceased is no ground to disbelieve them especially when in spite of lengthy cross‑examination, the defence did not succeed in bringing anything detrimental to the prosecution case. The eye‑witnesses are equally related to the appellant as well. The first informant is maternal‑uncle of the appellant, whereas, Peer Muhammad is his maternal‑grandfather. The evidence of these two witnesses finds support from the evidence of recovery as well as the post‑mortem report. So after assessing entire prosecution evidence, we are of two; view that there is no element of doubt in the prosecution story. The appellant is not entitled to acquittal. The next question to be determined is whether the appellant is to be given any concession in the sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant while arguing this point submitted that the parties are related. There is evidence of provocation from the side of the complainant. The appellant is a young man of 21 years and it would not be fair to hang him. We have considered this aspect. But this does not appear to us to be a mitigating circumstance for reduction of sentence. The deceased was also a young man of 18 years. He was busy with his routine work in when he was knived to death. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was an element of provocation. The incident of beating occurred a day before. The appellant came armed with a knife. It is, therefore, obvious that he had no other intention but to kill Abdul Majid. We have also taken into consideration the statement of the appellant referred to above. But even that too is not helpful to him. In the absence of any mitigating circumstance, we dismiss the appeal and confirm the death sentence. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.