1985 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 20th March, 1985. Manzur son of Ilam Din aged 50, has been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of Mst. Shahnaz aged 18, wife of his son Riasat Ali and his daughter‑in‑law, and vide judgment, dated 9‑11‑1981 of the Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life plus a fine of Rs.3,000 or in default thereof to undergo 2 years' R.I. His appeal is being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The occurrence took place at 3 a.m. on 25‑2‑1981 in the house of the deceased and the appellant in village Bibipur at a distance of 9 miles from Police Station Sadar Okara District Sahiwal. F.I.R. (Exh.P.C.) was lodged by Shahnawaz P.W.5 not connected, at 9‑30 a.m. on 25‑2‑1981 and it was recorded by Saleem Akhtar S.I. P.W.

10. In the F.I.R. the motive for the commission of crime as stated is that the appellant had illicit relationship with his daughter‑in‑law, namely, the deceased and that this had become known to many people in the village. Therefore, because of fear of scandal he is stated to have strangulated the deceased.

3. In the F.I.R. the occurrence is reported to have taken place in the following manner. On the fateful day Shahnawaz and Gulzar Ali P.Ws. 5 and 6, both unconnected were watering their crops. They suddenly heard alarm coming from the house of the deceased and rushed towards the spot. They saw that there was light in the room of the appellant and that he was beating the deceased with fists. In the meantime, right under their eyes, he made the deceased fall down from the cot and then strangulated her. The eye‑witnesses tried to stop him but he threatened them that if' tiny one came near he would kill him. He also stated that she had been defaming him. In the meantime on her alarm Fateh Muhammad P.W.7, a neighbour, also turned up and witnessed the occurrence. Shortly thereafter the deceased died on the spot. The eye‑witnesses apprehended the appellant on the spot. Thereafter, leaving Gulzar Ali and Fateh Muhammad P.Ws. to guard the dead body as well as the appellant, Shahnawaz P.W. proceeded to lodge the report.

4. The appellant was formally arrested by Saleem Akhtar S.I. P.W.10 on 25‑2‑1981 when he visited the spot. He was produced before the police officer by Gulzar Ali and Fateh Muhammad P.Ws. There is no recovery in the instant case.

5. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court denied having participated in the occurrence. He gave his own version of the occurrence which is to the following effect. "I have been falsely implicated on account of enmity with Shahnawaz Gulzar Ali and Fateh Muhammad P.Ws. They had not seen the occurrence. The true facts are that Mst. Shahnaz deceased was like my real daughter. She was brought up by me. I married her to my son Riasat Ali. The allegation against me that I had illicit relations with her is concoction of the P.Ws. The deceased used to sleep during the night with her husband in the Baithak of my house. I had been sleeping alongwith my second wife in a separate room. During the night of occurrence, my son Riasat Ali had gone to Lahore. Mst. Shahnaz deceased was alone in the Baithak during the night of occurrence after evening meals, I slept in a room alongwith my wife and children and Mst. Shahnaz deceased slept in the Baithak. At about mid‑night I woke up to urinate. When I was near the Baithak I heard some murmuring inside. The window of the Baithak which opened in the courtyard, was pushed by me. Its chain from inside got broken. I entered into the Baithak through the window. I found that the deceased was in compromising position with Munawar son of Rajab Ali of our village. As soon as I entered into the Baithak, Munawar Ali aforesaid fled away through the door of the Baithak which opened in the street. I then gave beating to the deceased under grave and sudden provocation. She subsequently died. I then went to the police station and reported the matter, the police officer did not record my report and instead recorded the report of Shahnawaz P.W. in connivance with him and other witnesses."

6. Dr. Muhammad Athar P.W. 8 conducted the post‑mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at 12 noon on 26‑2‑1981 and found on her person an abrasion on the left side of forehead, an abrasion on the left side of chin, an abrasion on the bridge of nose, contusion mark 3" x 2" on the left side of neck below the angle of the jaw, contusion mark plus skin abraded 2" x 1" below the angle of the right jaw, and contusion mark 2" x 1" above the upper edge of the sternum. In his opinion the cause of death was shock and strangulation. These injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The probable duration of injuries and death was 15 minutes.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the record. The main arguments of learned counsel for the appellant are that the eye‑witnesses were chance witnesses and they had not seen the occurrence at all. His case is that it is an un-witnessed occurrence, and, therefore, the version of the occurrence given by the appellant should be accepted. In other words the case of the appellant is that he had committed the murder of the deceased under grave and sudden provocation as he found her in a compromising position with someone, namely, Munawar Ali, who managed to escape. In support of his argument learned counsel submits that the medical evidence is to the effect that the vaginal swabs taken in this case were found to be stained with semen. Learned counsel, therefore, waists me to draw the inference that the deceased was found in a compromising position with someone by the appellant and the appellant under grave and sudden provocation gave her beating and killed her as a result thereof. He, therefore, wants that I should bring this case under Exception I to section 300, P.P.C. and sentence him accordingly. I have carefully considered this aspect of the case. In my view there is nothing on the record to show that the eye‑witnesses did not witness the occurrence. There is nothing on the record to show that the eye‑witnesses were inimical or interested in any way with a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Their presence is likely because usually at 3 a.m. in the morning the villagers wake up to irrigate their crops and they are unconnected persons who had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. According to their version they heard noise coming from the house of the deceased and, therefore, rushed to the spot. Similarly, a neighbour Fateh Muhammad P.W. was also attracted to the scene of crime on hearing alarm. Shahnawaz and Gulzar Ali P.Ws. were not given any suggestion about the defence version. However, Fateh Muhammad P.W. was put the defence version in the cross‑examination. In reply to the same he stated that the appellant was sitting on the chest of the deceased. He was wearing his clothes but the deceased was not wearing Shalwar at that time. Then he voluntarily stated that the appellant had illicit relations with the deceased. It was incorrect that the deceased was a woman of bad character. The appellant had believed that the deceased was levelling false allegation against him. The appellant had made such statement before the eye‑witnesses at the time of occurrence. It was incorrect that a stranger had fled away from the spot at the time of occurrence and that the appellant had made such a statement before them. Thus, in the light of this evidence there is nothing on the record in support of the defence version. I am, therefore, convinced in my mind that it was the appellant who had committed the murder of the deceased and none else. In fact it was a case in which he should have been sentenced to death rather than imprisonment for life but the trial Court had already taken a lenient view. Be that as it may, since I am of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case as against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt his conviction as well as sentence awarded to him were quite proper and are accordingly maintained. This appeal is dismissed. S.A. Appeal dismissed