1991 PLP 966 (SCMR)

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.302‑‑‑Conviction based on evidence of independent eye‑witnesses and corroborated by pieces of evidence‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Eye‑witness was not an inimical witness and his statement was not only unimpeachable but was fully corroborated by other pieces of evidence namely, accused was produced by another prosecution witness before police and the same witness had also produced the blood‑stained hatchet and also that accused was wearing blood‑stained clothes at the time of his arrest, which facts had remained un-rebutted‑‑‑Conviction of accused was, therefore, based on sound footing. Muhammad Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Raja Abdul Ghafoor Advocate Supreme Court for the State. Date of hearing: 8th October, 1990. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the conviction recorded against the appellant was proper in the circumstances of the case as the same was` passed on the sole testimony of the father of the deceased who seemed to, have a grudge against the appellant and there was no independent corroboration.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant was tried for the murder of his wife Mst. Mukhtar Begum by the learned Sessions Judge, Multan, who convicted him under section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.3,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. for one year with the direction that the amount of fine, if realised, be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544‑A, Cr. P.C. His appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court.

3. The report of the incident was lodged by P.W. Khuda Bakhsh who stated that on 9‑6‑1981 at about 9 a.m. he was sitting in his village, when his daughter, Mst. Mukhtar Begum was returning after making purchases from the shop of Hassan Bakhsh. The appellant arrived at the spot. He was armed with a hatchet. He inflicted hatchet blows on her head, neck and left thigh. On her alarm Mumtaz and Ahmad Yar were attracted who witnessed the occurrence and overpowered the appellant and apprehended him alongwith the blood‑stained hatchet. Ghazi snatched the hatchet from the appellant. The motive for the murder was that the appellant was married with the deceased about 7 years back before the occurrence. Four months before the occurrence, the relations between the husband and wife became strained as a result of which the deceased had left his house and was residing with her father. At the trial, the prosecution relied upon the statement of Khuda Bakhsh. The three eye‑witnesses were given up as having been won over. The conviction of the appellant was based on the testimony of Khuda Bakhsh supported by medical evidence; the apprehension of the appellant at the spot and the recovery of the weapon of crime from his possession.

4. P.W. 6 Khuda Bakhsh in his deposition stated that the appellant gave 3/4 hatchet blows to the deceased. He alongwith Ghazi, Mumtaz and Ahmad Yar rushed to the spot. They caught hold of the accused alongwith the blood‑stained weapon. This witness has been cross‑examined at length but nothing has been brought out on record which discredits the testimony of this witness. This witness has deposed that Ghazi P.W. produced the Kulhari before the police at the spot. Ghazi P.W. is the maternal grandfather of the deceased and Ahmad Yar P.W. is the maternal uncle of the deceased. P.W.7 Muhammad Ismail, A.S.1. has corroborated the statement of P.W.6 about the production of hatchet by Ghazi P.W. He stated that Ghazi P.W. produced before him the blood‑stained hatchet Exh. P. He further stated that Ghazi P.W. had produced before him Haji Muhammad accused whom he arrested. The statement of this witness fully corroborates the statement of the complainant that the appellant was apprehended at the spot. The hatchet which was snatched from the accused after the commission of the offence was produced before him by Ghazi P.W. The hatchet was stained with blood. Further corroboration can be sought from the statement of this witness wherein he stated that the appellant was wearing blood‑stained shirt Exh. P.5 and blood‑stained Dhoti Exh. P.6 at the time of arrest. It, therefore, cannot be said that the conviction of the appellant was based on the sole testimony of P.W. Khuda Bakhsh. There was no deep‑rooted enmity and a circumstance has been given about the presence of the wife of the accused in the house of the complainant. P.W.6 was nest an inimical witness. His statement was produced by Ghazi before the police. The same witness also produced the blood‑stained hatchet. The accused was wearing blood‑stained clothes at the time of his arrest. These facts remain un rebutted. The evidence of Khuda Bakhsh was unimpeachable. It was fully corroborated with the other pieces of evidence. Therefore, his conviction was based on the sound footing.

5. There is no force in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./H‑122/S Appeal dismissed.