1968 PLP 396 (SCMR)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.-Leave to appeal was granted in this case to consider the question whether death sentence was the only proper sentence to be awarded in the circumstances revealved by the evidence on the record. The facts of the case may be briefly summarised in order to appreciate the point of sentence. The deceased, Muhammad Siddiq, was a School Master at village Mujahid Junejo. He used to go every morning and return to his own village, Buxo Sario, in the evening. On the morning of the 24th June 1965, he left for Larkana where he had to give his clothes fur washing and to attend to some other personal business in the office of the District Inspector. He had told his brother, Din Muhammad, while leaving that he would go to the School from Larkana on the morning of 25th June 1965 and return to his village in the evening. He, however, failed to do so. His brother, Din Muhammad, then made enquiries in village Mujahid on the morning of the 26th June 1965 and learnt that the deceased had not attended the School the previous day. Enquiries at Larkana also revealed that he had not visited that city. Din Muhammad was joined by his brother, Muhammad Ibrahim, in the search for the deceased. They went to Ratodero and informed their maternal cousin Buxal, P. W. that the deceased was missing. He too could throw no light on the matter. These three persons returned to their village along the inspection path of Jalbani minor. They observed a pool of dry blood close to Chandio watercourse. Marks of dragging were also visible and following it, they discovered a dead body in the bed of the watercourse. Its head had been completely severed from the trunk. The dead body was identified to be that of Muhammad Siddiq. Buxal went to the village of the deceased which was four furlongs away from the place of the recovery of the dead body and informed P. W. Abdullah that his son had been murdered. Abdullah and others visited the spot and confirmed that the dead body was that of Muhammad Siddiq. The matter was reported to the police on the morning of the 27th June 1965 and investigation started. It appears that Is so was suspected, but on enquiry it was learnt that he had absconded. Suspicion had also fallen on some other persons who were interrogated. On the 29th June 1965, Shah Muhammad Sario P. W., nekmard of the deceased's village, was coming back to his village from Ratodero by bus. Isso appellant happened to be travelling by the same bus. They both got down at Sadiq Bus Stand and then walked together. They had gone a distance of 100-150 paces when Isso took Shah Muhammad into his confidence and told him that he had committed the murder of Muhammad Siddiq and requested him to get the matter settled. The reason given by him .for the murder was that the deceased had helped Mst. Murad Khatoon in obtaining divorce from his brother, Ali gohar, through Civil Court. He also volunteered to surrender to the police through Shah Muhammad. Shah Muhammad, therefore, brought the accused to his village and produced him before the A. S. I. at 12.00 noon. Issue was arrested. During the investigation he led the police party to his house in the village and produced a shirt, a loin cloth and a hatchet from a heap of palal lying in the courtyard of his house. These articles were later proved to be stained with human blood. On the 30th June 1965, the appellant was produced before Mr. Miro Khan, Magistrate who recorded his judicial confession. The conviction is based on the evidence of motive, the extra-judicial confession made' to Shah Muhammad, the judicial confession of the appellant in Court and the recovery of blood stained articles at tile instance of the appellant. The evidence was found to be satisfactory by the Courts below and on this score, no ground was found by this Court to take exception to the conviction. In his confessional statement, the appellant had stated that he had committed the murder due to provocation and therefore, wanted to speak the truth about the matter. He explained that Mst. Muradan, daughter of Abdullah, was married to his brother, Aligohar, who resided with his in-laws after the marriage, Master Muhammad Siddiq, deceased, started visiting the house of Abdullah and, according to the appellant, Aligohar took exception to it. He requested his father-in-law to stop the visits of Muhammad Siddiq to his house and also warned Muhammad Siddiq about it, but with no effect. Aligohar being annoyed by these circumstances, left his father-in-law's house and went to live with his brother, the appellant. Some two months prior to the occurrence, Master Muhammad Siddiq took Mst. Muradan, wife of Aligohar, to the Civil Court, Larkana and got a suit filed by her for divorce from her husband, Aligohar, so that he should be able to marry her after the divorce. He even persuaded Abdullah, his wife Mst. Gullan and daughter Mst. Muradan to migrate from the village and to settle in Larkana. This was the cause of great annoyance to the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, suggested that if this confessional statement was voluntary and true, there was sufficient provocation to justify leniency in the matter of sentence even if the offence of murder had been brought home to the appellant. We are not convinced, after consideration of the other evidence on record that the appellant's statement about the motive could be accepted on its face value. Din Muhammad, brother of the deceased, only stated that a month before the murder, Muhammad Siddiq had informed him that he was threatened by Isso and Aligohar because he had helped Mst. Muradan to obtain the dissolution of her marriage from the Civil Court of Larkana. He had told him that he accompanied the woman's father on his request to help in filing the suit. According to the deceased, Aligohar had left his father-in-law's house because he was not maintaining his wife and this was the reason for the divorce suit. This was confirmed by Mst. Murad Khatoon as P. W. 5. She explained that her father bad approached Master Muhammad Siddiq for help in the litiga tion, as he himself was an uneducated person. Muhammad Siddiq, therefore, accompanied them to Larkana and had helped them in filing the suit. She asserted that her husband had left her father's house because her father had insisted that he should work for her maintenance. No suggestion was made to her that she had illicit intimacy with the deceased. No other witness was questioned on this aspect of the case. It appears, therefore, that the appellant while making his confession exaggerated the matter in order to minimize the gravity of his own offence. All that seems to have been established by the other evidence on record is, that Master Muhammad Siddiq, being an educated person, had been called upon by Mst. Muradan's father to assist him in pursuing the litigation at Larkana, .for obtaining the Divorce from Aligohar. This, by itself, was not such an act as should have given provocation to the appellant. The sentence of death imposed in this case and confirmed by the High Court was, therefore, appropriate and being a legal sentence, we do not find any justification for interference with it. In view of the time that has elapsed since the appellant's conviction, perhaps the Provincial Government may be approached for commutation of the sentence, if the appellant be so advised. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.