1985 P Cr (PLP)

LEHRASAP KHAN, J.‑‑ Noor Muhammad (35) has been convicted on 27‑4‑1982 by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, on four counts, for the murders of (i) Mst. Sharifan his sister‑in‑law (30), (ii) Mst. Haneefan his wife (35), (iii) Mst. Sardaran his mother‑in‑law (55) and (iv) Inayat his father‑in‑law (65) and has been sentenced to death on each count and also to a fine of Rs.2,000 on each count, in default one year's R.I. in each count. It has further been directd that half of the fine, if realized, would be paid to the legal heirs of Mst. Sharifan, Mst. Haneefan, Mst. Sardaran and Inayat deceased.

2. The convict has challenged his conviction and sentence through the present appeal. The matter also stands referred to us under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code, for confirmation of death sentence of the appellant. This judgment shall dispose of appeal as well as murder reference.

3. The occurrence, in this case, took place on 21‑3‑1981 at Deegerwela in the Ehata of the deceased so far as murders of the three ladies are concerned, while Inayat deceased was murdered in a Barseem field of Muhammad Aslam Lambardar, near his (Inayat's) Ehata, in Chak No. 32/2‑R, at a distance of 8 kilometers from police Station Sadar, Okara.

4. The occurrence was reported at Police Station, Sadar Okara, by Muhammad Yar alias Zulfiqar son of Mst. Haneefan deceased from her previous husband a brother of the appellant, vide F.I. R. Exh. P.C., which was recorded by Ghulam Hussain, Sub‑Inspector of Police (P.W.10), at 5‑45 p. m., the same day.

5. Regarding motive, it is alleged that Noor Muhammad appellant suspected that Mst. Sharifan deceased his sister‑in‑law was of easy virtues and had illicit liaison with Sardar Khan (P.W.9). He often forbade Sardar Khan not to visit his house. The other deceased ladies were suspected by the appellant to be go‑between. He also suspected that Inayat deceased his father‑in‑law was impliedly consenting to this affair.

6. As for the main occurrence, it has been stated thus on the eventful day, the appellant asked Muhammad Yar (P.W.4), his nephew, that he should go to the field and bring fodder but Mst. Haneefan‑‑the mother of Muhammad Yar asked the appellant that he should himself go and bring the fodder. Thus, ensued exchange of hot words and abuses between Mst. Haneefan deceased and the appellant. The other two deceased ladies, viz. Mst. Sharifan and Mst. Sardaran sided with Mst. Haneefan, so much so that they grappled with the appellant. The appellant picked up a Sota and injured the ladies. After receiving the injuries they fell down on the ground. Muhammad Yar (P.W.4) also intervened, but he too .was given a Sota blow. Then the appellant picked up poker (Aar) and attacked Mst. Sardaran on her head. Muhammad Yar (P.W.4) caught hold of the poker and received injuries on his left hand. Muhammad Yar, out Of fear, ran away and raised alarm. By the alarm, thus raised, Sardar Khan (P.W.9) came to the scene of occurrence. Inayat deceased ran out of his house for help. The appellant then picked up a Kulhara. He first attacked Mst. Sardaran with Kulhara on her right leg and then on her head'. Thereafter he attacked Mst. Heneefan on both of her legs and also caused injuries on her head. Then he injured Mst. Sharifan with Kulhara on her right leg and head. Then the appellant chased Inayat deceased in the Barseem field of Muhammad Aslam Lambardar and caused injures on his head with Kulhara. The occurrence was seen by Muhammad Yar alias Zulfiqar (P.W. 4), Sardar Khan (P.W.9), Muhammad Aslam Lambardar and Peer Shakoh Muhammad (both not produced). One Manzoor has also testified at the trial as an eye‑witness (P.W.8) although he has not been named as such in the F.I.R. (Exh. P.C.). 6‑A. Peer Shakoh Muhammad, Muhammad Aslam, Lambardar and Sardar Khan (P.W.9) ultimately apprehended the appellant alongwith his Kulhara. On the arrival of the police at the spot, the appellant was produced before Ghulam Hussain S.I. (P.W.10) with blood‑stained Kulhara (P.13) which was secured vide memo. Exh. P. K. attested by Sardar Khan (P.W.9), Peer Shakoh Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam, Lambardar (not produced). Three blood‑stained pieces of broken Khunda (P.16/1‑3) were taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.R. Similarly, poker (Aar) blood‑stained, was also secured from the spot vide memo. Exh. P.S. The memos. Exh. P.R. and P.S. have also been attested by the aforementioned witnesses who attested the recovery memo. P.K. in respect of the blood‑stained Kulhara.

7. At the time of arrest, the appellant was wearing blood‑stained clothes i.e. shirt (P.14) and Chaddar (P.15) which were also taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.1. by Ghulam Hussain S.I. (P.W.10) in the presence of Sardar Khan (P.W.9), Muhammad Aslam and Peer Shakoh Muhammad (both not produced).

8. Vide Serologist's report, Exh. P.EE, the result in respect of stains of blood on Kulhara, pieces of Khunda, poker (Aar) and clothes of the appellant is positive, being of human origin.

9. P. W.5 Dr. Muhammad Athar, Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Okara, held autopsy on the dead bodies of the aforementioned four deceased on 22‑3‑1981. In case of Inayat deceased, he noticed the following three incised wounds on his dead body:‑ (1) An incised wound 8" x 2‑1/3" x brain deep cutting the parietal and front bone starting in front of the right eye going to the forehead and to the outer end of the left eyebrow. (2) An incised wound 1 x x bone deep on the right parietal bone just above the root of the ear. Bone parietal was found cut underneath alongwith the duramater. (3) An incised wound 3" x x bone deep, bone parietal was cut on the right side of head 2‑1/3" above the root of the ear. He opined that the death was due to injury No.1, caused by a sharp edged weapon, which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante‑mortem. In case of Mst. Sardaran deceased, he noticed following five injuries on her person:‑ (1) A contusion mark 3" x 1" with a contused wound x x bone deep on the medial aspect of right leg two inches above the medial maleolus. Right tibia and fibula were found fractured 2" above the ankle joint. (2) A contused wound 2 x 3/4" bone deep on the right frontal parietal bone 3" above the right ear. Frontal and parietal bones were found underneath fractured into pieces. (3) A contused wound 1" x x bone deep on the right frontal bone just above the right eyebrow. Frontal bone was found fractured into pieces. (4) A contused wound x x bone deep on the right lateral end of the eyebrow. Frontal bone was found fractured. (5) A contused wound 2 x x bone deep on the left parietal bone 3" above the left ear. There was a fracture line on the left parietal region. Membranes were found congested. He opined that death occurred due to injuries Nos. 1 to 5, individually and collectively which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injury No. 1 had caused shock and haemorrhage while injuries Nos. 2 to 5 caused concussion and injury to the brain matter. All the injuries, were caused by blunt weapon and were ante mortem. In case of Mst. Sharifan, the Medical Officer noticed the following six injuries:‑ (1) An incised wound 2 x x bone deep on the back and medial aspect of right leg 3" above ankle joint, tibia and fibula were found cut underneath. (2) An incised wound 2 x 1" x bone deep on the left side of the forehead, in the frontal bone, frontal bone was cut underneath. (3) An incised wound 1" x x bone deep on the left and lateral side of the eyebrow, frontal bone was found fractured underneath. (4) A contused wound x x bone deep on the left cheek, the cheek was swollen with multiple contusion marks over it. (5) A swelling 4" x 4" on the right parietal bone (on opening the skull the parietal temporal bones were found depressed and were fractured into pieces). (6) Incised wound 2 x x bone deep on the right frontal bone just above the lateral end of the eyebrow. Frontal bone was fractured underneath. In his opinion, the deceased had died due to injuries Nos. 1 to 6 individually and collectively as these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 were caused by sharp‑edged weapon, while the rest with blunt weapon. All the injuries were ante‑mortem. In case of Mst. Haneefan, the following five injuries were noticed by the medical officer at the time of autopsy on her dead body:‑ (1) An incised wound 2 x x bone deep on the medial aspect of left leg just above ankle joint, tibia and fibula were fractured underneath. (2) An incised wound 3" x 1" x bone deep on the lateral aspect of right leg, tibia and fibula were cut (fractured underneath). (3) A contused wound 1" x 3/4" x bone deep on the frontal bone 3" above the bridge of the nose. Frontal bone was fractured underneath. (4) A contused wound 3/4" x on the right frontal bone, just above the lateral end of the eyebrow. (5) A swelling 3" x 3 on the right tempo‑parietal region. Bone temporal was found fractured underneath. It has been opined by the witness that injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were caused by a sharp‑edged weapon, while the rest were caused by blunt weapon. All the injuries were ante‑mortem. On the same day, Dr. Muhammad Athar examined Muhammad Yar alias Zulfiqar (P.W.4), vide medico‑legal report Exh. P.H. and noticed two contused wounds on and around left ear, one contusion mark on the palmer surface of left hand and a swelling on the lateral side of left knee joint. All the injuries were declared to be simple having been caused by blunt weapon.

10. The prosecution, in all, examined ten P. Ws. at the trial, out of whom P.W.5 Dr. Muhammad Athar stated about the post‑mortem examinations of the dead bodies of the four deceased as detailed above. Muhammad Yar alias Zulfiqar (P.W.4), Manzoor (P.W.8) and Sardar Khan (P.W.9) testified as eye‑witnesses to furnish ocular account of the prosecution version. They supported the prosecution case as set out in the First Information Report Exh. P.C. Ghulam Hussain Sub‑Inspector of Police (P.W.10) testified as the Investigating Officer. The rest are formal witnesses.

11. The plea of appellant is of denial simpliciter. He claimed to be innocent and victim of fabricated evidence. He did not produce any evidence in defence. In reply to question No. 7: "Why this case and why do the P.Ws. have deposed against you?", he stated: "It is a concocted case. Sardar Khan P.W. was carrying on with Mst. Sharifan who had deserted her husband and was living with her father. He used to visit the Ehata to carry on his intimacy with Mst. Sharifan and I stopped him several times from visiting his Ehata and carrying on with Mst. Sharifan deceased. Inayat deceased and the women deceased were also in league with Sardar Khan P. W. and they neither prevented him nor discouraged his visit to the Ehata for that purpose. Viginal swabs of Mst. Sharifan sent to Chemical Examiner also support the fact that Mst. Sharifan deceased was a woman of bad character. She was living away from her husband for the last one year as recorded in the F.I.R. Sardar Khan P.W. is at the root of this present false case. The other independent P.Ws. namely, Peer Shakoh Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam Lambardar were not prepared to support this false case and that is why, obviously, they have been given up. Manzoor P.W. is son of Mst. Sharifan from Waryam to whom she had deserted. Waryam tried to extort money from me, so that Manzoor may not depose against me but I declined to oblige him and Manzoor who had not been even named in the F.I.R. as a witness has been persuaded by Waryam to depose against me. It appears that it was an unwitnessed crime and Sardar Khan had offered himself as a P. W. merely because of his hostility against me."

12. The only plea which has been advanced before us on behalf of the appellant is that he might have acted under grave and sudden provocation. This plea has not been taken at the trial. In his statement under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant claims that hoe has been substituted for the real culprit and that, in fact, the offence was committed by Waryam, the husband of Mst. Sharifan, whom she had deserted a year prior to the occurrence.

13. The appellant has also been produced before us at the time of hearing of the appeal. Again, he claimed to be innocent and pleaded that he has been substituted for the real culprit and that Waryam, aforesaid might have committed this offence. In such circumstances, there is no substance in the plea of the appellant having acted under grave and sudden provocation.

14. This is a daylight occurrence. The appellant alone has been held liable for the murders of four persons. There is nothing on the record to suggest that Muhammad Yar alias Zulfiqar (P.W.4) had any motive to substitute the appellant‑‑his real paternal‑uncle for the real culprits. The appellant has himself stated that Mst. Sharifan was a woman of easy virtues and was carrying on with Sardar Khan. Thus, R the allegations regarding motive are supported by him also.

15. In the light of above observations, we have come to the conclusion that it has been fully established beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellant has murdered the four, deceased brutally. We, therefore, uphold his conviction and sentence and dismiss his appeal. His death sentence is accordingly confirmed. H.A.K. Appeal dismissed.