1970 P Cr (PLP)

SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑Saddiq and his cousin, Abdul Rahman, appellants, have been condemned to death at a Sessions trial at Larkana for the murder of the former's mother, Mst. Kamalan. Their convictions and sentences have been confirmed by the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench. On a petition, through Jail, to this Court, special leave was granted to them to re‑examine the evidence for the safe dispensation of justice, to see if their convictions were soundly based. The deceased was, at first, married to Hazaro, father of the appellant Siddiq, on whose death, three years ago, she re married one, Shahan, in spite of the opposition of the appellants and their relatives. She got a son from Shahan aged 1 years and a daughter who was born three days before the occurrence. Shahan was in Jail during those days in connection with a murder charge and Kamalan was living with her parents‑in‑law, P. Ws. Gindo and Mst. Subhan Khatoon. The motive alleged for this murder was that the appellants were annoyed over the marriage of the deceased with Shahan. According to the prosecution case, the two appellants armed with hatchets, came to the house of Gindo at 9 a.m. on the 3rd of October 1967, and attacked the deceased who was lying on a cot. Her mother‑in‑law, P. W. Mst. Subhan Khatoon, was, at the time, giving a massage to the new‑born baby. Gindo was working in the field 200 yards away and ran back to the house on hearing the alarm and saw the appellants causing injuries to the deceased and then running away. The prosecution case mainly rests on the occular evidence of these two eye‑witnesses. Girda lodged the F. I. R. at 12 noon, the same day, at the Ratodero Police Station which is situated at a distance of 3 miles from the place of occurrence. Before making the report, he had informed his brother, P. W. Ghulam Nabi about the incident. Durirg the investigation, each one of the appellants produced a hatchet, the one produced by Abdul Rahman being stained with human blood. The autopsy of the deceased revealed three incised wounds on her body, one on the right parietal region cutting the right parietal bone and frontal bone, the second on the right side of the face going to the middle of the chin cutting the jaw bone and the third on the wrist‑joint. The appellants denied the charge and attributed it to enmity with the complainant party over a piece of land, which was in possession of Bako, grandfather of Siddiq, which he was not prepared to vacate, although it had been purchased by, Gindo P. W. from a refugee. This alleged enmity seems to be pointless and that is why a new story was introduced in the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal submitted in this Court. It was alleged therein that Mst. Kamalan was suspected of having an illicit connection with one, Gul Muhammad, who was murdered by Shahan in respect of which he was in Jail during the days of occurrence and that his parents, namely, Gindo and Mst. Subhan Khatoon, P. Ws., had killed the deceased on the same suspicion and falsely foisted the charge on the appellants. This version of the occurrence as stated in the petition, must be summarily dismissed as it is an after thought which was not even hinted at during the proceedings at the trial. The case against the appellants has, therefore, to be approached from the viewpoint that a prompt and straight charge was laid against them without any motivation of enmity. It was a day light occurrence and there was no need for the prosecution to falsely substitute the appellants for the real culprits, particularly as Mst. Subhan Khatoon claimed without a challenge by the defence, that the appellants were the sons of her nephews. It is, therefore, unthinkable that she could be a party to a false charge against them. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rustam J. E. Kaikobad, who has appeared at State expense, has submitted that P. W. Gindo who was working in his field, 200 yards away, could not have come over and witnessed the occurrence on hearing the alarm, as the entire grief to the deceased must have been done in a few moments. It may be that he did not actually see the infliction of the‑injuries on the deceased by the appellants, but he was quite in a position to see them running away after having committed the crime. His evidence, therefore, cannot be rejected as that of a false witness, even if suspicion may attach a‑n his direct evidence of seeing the infliction of injuries. There can, however, be no doubt about the presence of Mst. Subhan Khatoon at the time of the occurrence which took place, in her own house. The learned counsel for the appellants tried to undo this evidence by reference to the committing Court's statement of Ghulam Nabi P. W., wherein he had said, that he had seen Mst. Subhan Khatoon coming from the fields after he had reached the house of Gindo on learning about the occurrence. As remarked by the learned Judges in the High Court, the committing Court's statement of Ghulam Nabi, even if true, cannot discredit the testimony of Mst. Subhan Khatoon, because there can be more than one reason to explain her going out of the house after the occurrence and returning to it before the arrival of Ghulam Nabi there. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that the recovery of the hatchet from Abdul Rahman should be discounted as the mashirnama of that recovery is witnessed by one, Jaffar; who is identified with the complainant party. We do not agree. If the prosecution had wanted to create false evidence of plantation of the weapon of crime, the effort should have been directed to plant one on Siddiq who had a more direct motive to kill the deceased. The hatchet recovered from his possession was not found to be blood‑stained which points out to the integrity of the recoveries made in this case. We are satisfied that the Courts below have made a correct appraisement of the evidence which satisfactorily proves the charge against both the appellants. No valid basis is disclosed for our interference in this case. The appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.