1993 P Cr (PLP)

(1) A lacerated wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. on the left side of skull 6 c.m. above the left ear pinna. (2) A lacerated wound 6 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the right side of skull 8 c.m. above the forehead. Skull was fractured and the brain matter was coming out through the injury. Scalp and skull were found fractured. The membrane of the brain were ruptured and brain matter was coming out. In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to cerebral haemorrhage, shock, fracture of skull and compression of brain due to injuries Nos.l and 2 which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and were ante-mortem.

5. Mst. Amina Bibi (P.W.5) who is widow of the deceased deposed that a quarrel took place between her and Mst. Nasim wife of the appellant over the turn of water from water tap a day before the occurrence. The deceased came there and insulted her. On -the following day the appellant due to this grudge attacked the deceased and caused his death.

6. Mst. Kamal Khatoon (P.W.6) the eye-witness of the occurrence has stated that on 30-3-1989 at 10 a.m. she alongwith her deceased son went to fetch flour from Naushera Bazar and when they reached at a distance of 4/5 Karams from her house and in front of the house of Muhammad Sharif, the appellant armed with Malna challenged her deceased son and attacked him saying that he would not allow the deceased to be alive as he insulted his wife yesterday. The accused caused two Mama blows on left and right side of the head of the deceased and as a result of the injuries the brain matter flowed out. The occurrence was also witnessed by Saleh Muhammad and Asmat Khatoon P.Ws. The accused fled away from the spot with the weapon of offence.

7. A day before the occurrence Mst. Nasim, wife of the appellant and Mst. Amina Bibi, wife of the deceased, quarrelled with each other on water tap for turn of water. Alamgir deceased went there and abused Mst. Nasim who narrated the incident to the appellant who in order to take revenge of the insult of his wife caused his death.

8. Salah Muhammad (P.W.7) corroborated the statement of P.W.6 Ad the contents of the F.I.R.

9. The accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. stated that on the day of occurrence a quarrel took place between Mst. Nasim his wife and Mst. Amina Bibi wife of the deceased, as a result of which the appellant and the deceased reached at the spot and grappled with' each other and incidentally the head of the deceased struck against the stone of the wall and he received injuries. The appellant did not cause any injury to the deceased. He denied the recovery of blood-stained Malna (P.1).

10. The appellant has filed this appeal from jail, and therefore, the learned State counsel was directed to assist the Court both for defence and the prosecution.

11. I have heard learned counsel both for the accused and the State and also perused the record carefully.

12. The occurrence in the present case is admitted by the defence with a different version. According to the prosecution version the quarrel between the two ladies took place one day before the occurrence and that the appellant caused injuries to the deceased with Malna whereas as per defence version the quarrel took place between the ladies on the day of occurrence and as a result thereof the deceased and the appellant grapplled with each other and during this process the deceased struck with the wall and received injuries: The two versions while putting in juxtaposition, it is to be seen that which one is plausibe.

13. Dr. War Manzoor (P.W.1) stated that both the injuries are result of two independent blows and that the same could not be the result of fall on the stone. The facts of the case with regard to the quarrel between the ladies and receiving of the injuries by the deceased, the presence of the appellant at the spot, the time and place of occurrence are not disputed. The whole controversy is with regard to the manner of taking place of the occurrence. It is not the case of the defence that the head of the accused struck twice with the stone from both sides. The defence even has not put any question to the P.Ws. that deceased received injuries on head as a result of stricking of his head twice with wall. Therefore, if the version given by the defence is accepted as correct even then the two injuries in both sides of the head are not possible. Further, the defence has not put a single question or suggestion to the eye-witnesses with regard to the quarrel between the ladies on the day of occurrence. The defence plea is not. supported by any direct or circumstantial evidence on the record. Thus, the motive evidence furnished by P.W.5 and eye-witness account remained unchallenged on all material points. The houses of both the eye-witnesses i.e. P.W.1, and P.W.7 are situated at a close distance from place of occurrence and their presence at the spot cannot be doubted.

14. It is in the evidence that deceased and the appellant were carrying on the cordial relations with each other before the occurrence with no grudge, enmity or ill-will. The unfortune incident took place on account of quarrel between the ladies of both the sides, and therefore, there is no question of any false implication of the accused in the case. The occurrence took place at 10 a.m.. on 20-3-1989 and the first information report containing all material facts was lodged at 10-45 a.m. with the police station at a distance of 3/4 kilometres. The statement of P.W.5 is consistent with the contents of the F.I.R. and is also corroborated by the statement of P.W.7. The prosecution story further seeks corroboration from the recovery of blood-stained Malna P.1, the medical evidence and the motive.

15. For the foregoing reasons. I see no force in this appeal which fails. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is maintained. However; the appellant shall get benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. N.H.Q./A-236/L Appeal dismissed.