1977 P Cr (PLP)

(2) An incised wound 6" X 1" x meanings deep on right front to partietal region. (3) An incised wound 5" X 1" X scalp deep 1" lateral to injury No. 2. (4) An incised wound 5" X 1" X bone deep at mid occipital region, in his opinion the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage while injury No. 2 was individually sufficient to case death in the ordinary course of nature and collectively all the injuries were so sufficient. The injuries, according to him, appeared to have been caused with some sharp cutting weapon such as a hatchet.

6. The case of the appellant at the trial was that of complete denial. He denied to have committed [the murder of the deceased or even to be present at the `Wardat'. He also denied that the blood‑stained clothes or the hatchet were his or that the same had been secured from him. About the judicial confession he stated that it was under compulsion of police because the women‑folk were detained at the police station. The witnesses were depos ing against him as they were interested. He further stated that the land survey No. 26 Deh Bukerani had been allotted to Chajoo Khan but was in his occupation as a Hari. We had occupied a portion of vacant land near that survey number and had developed it. The complainant desired to have that for himself and as the appellant refused to part with the complainant started troubling him and tried to evict him with the assistance of P. W. Muharam. He had made an application to the Mukhtiarkar in this regard Exh.

49. As deceased Ghulam Hussain started coming to the land of Chajoo, complainant Riaz resented; the same. Riaz had settled one Imam Khan on the land and that he had illicit connections with his wife. Subsequently Imam Khan killed his wife on this account and was tried and Riaz and others were witnesses against him. Deceased Ghulam Hussain had a grudge against Riaz on that account. In the committal Court he said in his statement as under:‑ "I was a Hari of Chajoo Khan. He wanted me to leave his land which I refused. He wanted i1to oust me. 1, therefore, had made an application to the Mukhtiarkar, Tando Allahyar who did not decide the matter. On my return Muharam, Shidi, prosecution witness, who found ploughing my land wherein rapeseed crop was cultivated. In the evening it was my turn of water but I was not allowed to take my brother Bachayo was allowed to use it. I was told to come in the following day morning. Accordingly I want there and was again refused to get water hence I went to juma Khan to com plain about this fact. In the evening I returned and heard that Rise had got one man murdered in order to get the property as the deceased was his brother‑in‑law, I then again went to Juma Khan and informed him about the incident and told to make `faisla' lest I may be dragged. He then directed his munshi to accompany me to the police station. I was then brought to the police station. The Inspector of Police took me to one side and induced to confess promising that he would leave other persons who were my relatives detained at the police station. First of all I denied it but then on the following morning I was produced before this Court for confession Although the appellant had retracted from his judicial confession but in his own statement at the trial he admitted that there was a dispute over possession of land which was allotted to Chajoo and which he did not want to part with. To that extent, therefore, his confession is obviously admitted. In his confession he described the incident saying that his turn of water was fixed from 8 p.m. that day but Chajoo and Muharam were not allowing him to take the turn. He still diverted the water to his field when Riaz cried and told Muharam to bring the hatchets and divert the water and on that they all came running armed with hatchets. Deceased Ghulam Hussain was the first to reach him who showed the five fingers saying that previously also they had blackened his face. Now also they will do the same. As the deceased raised his hatchet the appellant thought they would kill him. He, therefore, gave him a hatchet blow on his head and deceased Ghulam Hussain fell down. The appellant rushed to others but they ran away. He then returned to the deceased who was still trembling. He, therefore, gave him 2/3 blows and killed him. Thereafter he rode away on the horse standing nearby. On the next day he went to Jumo Bozdar who sent him to the police station and then he produced his blood stained clothes and the hatchet before the Sub‑Inspector. The confession of the appellant is thus in conformity with the evidence of the three eye‑witnesses i.e. complaintant Riaz, Ismail and Muharam. Obviously these three witnesses are connected with each other as complainant Riaz is the son‑in‑law of Chajoo, the allottee of the land in dispute and Muharam is a Hari on the same. Ismail is a nephew of Muharam. But this connection in spite of the ill‑feelings in between the appellant and Chajoo, is not shown to be of a nature so as to taint their evidence as biased and therefore unreliable. Deceased Ghulam Hussain being of young age, it is quite possible that he might have shown some zeal and gone over to the appellant in the land that he admittedly occupied; but the eye‑witnesses who seem to be the natural witnesses of the incident do not appear to have such an enmity with the appellant so as to falsely implicate him in the murder of Ghulam Hussain. The appellant in his confession admitted the presence of witnesses Riaz and Muharam. Besides this, in spite of quite lengthy cross‑examination of the witnesses no material has been brought on record to throw doubt on the credibility of these witnesses. A Few discrepancies in their evidence do exist but they are not such as to devalue the worth of their evidence.

8. The evidence of the three eye‑witnesses as discussed above is natural and believable even if assessed on its own value. But in this case it stands corroborated by a further piece of evidence, which is of securing the clothes i.e. shirt and trousers from the person of the appellant at the time of his arrest and also his producing a. hatchet from inside the room where he lived. P. W. 8 Bundoo Khan acted as a mashir of his arrest and securing of the above articles and he is an independent witness and also supported by the Investigating Officer Fateh Ali Shah in this behalf. The clothes as well as hatchet were sent to the chemical examiner who found them all to be stained with human blood. Besides this, the evidence of the eye‑witnesses gains further support from the medical evidence in this case. So far as the judicial confession is concerned, the same was recorded by the Civil Judge & F. C. M., Tando Allahyar, before whom the appellant was produced for that purpose within 24 hours of his arrest. He was examined in Court. He took all the necessary precautions to see that the confession was made voluntarily and has given his reasons for holding the same to be not only voluntary but also true. Even otherwise, the confession stands substantially corroborated by the other evidence on record and there. Seems to be no reason to disbelieve this evidence.

9. In view of the above, there is evidence of reliable eye‑witnesses against the appellant, which is supported by the judicial confession, and recovery of incriminating articles and thus there is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed and the reference is accepted. AGHA ALI HYDER, J.‑I agree. Appeal dismissed.