1969 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal trial‑Child‑witness‑Statement amply corroborated by other witnesses‑Testimony relied upon for sustaining conviction under S. 302, P. P. C.‑--Penal Code (XL h of 1860), S.

302. Hamiduddin, Advocate Federal Court for Appellant. Mahmud Ali Khan, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing : 22nd April 1953. AKRAM, J. --‑This is an appeal with our leave obtained by the prisoner Umar, who was convicted and sentenced to death under section 302, P. P. C., for the murder of his wife Mst Darya Khatun, on the 9th May 1948, by inflicting upon her a number of blows with a hatchet. Mst. Darya Khatun had three sons, Mitho, Dado and Wahidu, and one daughter Jamul aged about 9 years by her previous husband Sher Khan, who died about four years ago. After Sher Khan's death, Mst. Darya Khatun had married his sister's son, the present appellant. The case for the prosecution was that on the day of occur rence, while Dado, Wahidu and Jamul were playing in the verandah of their house, the appellant accused his wife of being a disobedient woman and thereafter picked up a hatchet and inflicted with it a number of blows upon her, resulting in her death on the spot ; that on the cries of Mst. Darya Khatuu and her children, P. W. 1, Khatija, came out from her house, which was adjacent to the appellant's house, and was informed by P. W. 2, Jamul, that her step‑father, the husband of Darya Khatun after causing the injuries to Darya Khatun had run away. The defence of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated and though his name was Urnar, he was neither a resident of village Hashim Hingoro, nor the husband of Mst. Darya Khatun, nor her assailant, as alleged. No evidence, however, was adduced in support of the defence plea. Both the Courts below accepted the prosecution version in agreement with the, unanimous opinion of the assessors. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court mainly to see whether there was any substantive evidence on which the conviction of the appellant could be based as P. W. 2, Jamu, had deposed that the appellant was not the husband of Mst. Darya Khatun and P. W. 1 Mst. Khatija and P. W. 3, Mitho, had also given their evidence to the same effect. Counsel for the appellant urged before us that Jamul, P. W. 2, was not mentioned as an eye‑witness to the occurrence in the F. I. R. lodged by Allah Dino, P. W. 4, and that, therefore, she was not present at the occurrence and was only a tutored witness, but P. W. 4, merely lodged the information he was given by P. W. 1, and P. W. 1 stated in her deposition "Jamul said that her father had killed her mother". He further argued that evidence of the solitary eye‑witness Mst. Jamul, P. W. 2, was of a child aged about 9 years only, and as such could hardly be relied upon for the purpose of sustaining the conviction on a charge for such a grave offence, but the evidence of Mst. Jamul, P. W. 2, seems to us to be amply corroborated by the evidence of P. W. 1, Mst. Khatija, P. W. 3, Mitho and P. W. 4, Allahdino ; P. W. 2 was a competent witness and her evidence was, substantive evidence in the case. The only question then which remains is as to the identity of the appellant with the husband of Mst. Darya Khatun ; this is completely established by the identification marks found on the person of the appellant, the evidence of the Finger Print Expert, the evidence of P. W. 8, Dur Muhammad, P. W. 9, Khan Muhammad, P. W. 10, Sachu and some other witnesses. It may be mentioned that Mst. Darya Khatun's husband viz. Umar, was a member of a criminal tribe and besides the evidence mentioned above there was therefore available the further evidence in the shape of his personal Register Exh. 20, and Roll Call Register Exh. 19, which clearly showed the identity of the appellant. As the evidence mentioned above has been accepted by the Courts below on a full consideration of the facts and surrounding circumstances, we see no reason for us to reject the same as unworthy of credence. We have been taken through the evidence by the learned counsel for the appellant, and we are of opinion that there is ample evidence on the record in support of the conviction of the appellant. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.