1969 P Cr (PLP)

AKRAM, J.‑

This appeal, with our leave, is from a judgment of the Chief Court of Sind, dismissing the appeal of Soomar appellant (Appeal No. 371 of 1953) and confirming the conviction and the sentence of death passed upon him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, for causing the death of Mst. Qaima, appellant's step‑sister, by inflicting injuries upon her with a hatchet. Briefly stated, the case for the prosecution was that the appellant's father Ramzan had a daughter by one other wife Mst. Jamul ; that this daughter, namely, Mst. Qaima, was married to one Jurio ; that all these persons lived in village Jiando Chandio ; that on 9‑11‑1952, the appellant asked Mst. Jamul to allow her daughter Mst. Qaima to go with the appellant to village Lakhat, a few miles away, for the purpose of visiting some relatives there ; that on Mst. Jamul's giving her permission, the appellant and Mst. Qaima started together for Lakhat early in the morning ; that at about one and a half pehar after sunrise, the appellant returned to his village Jiando Chandio alone, went to his cousin Wahab (D. W. 1) confessed to him that he had killed his step. sister Mst. Qaima and suggested that Wahab must take him to the Police Station ; that accordingly Wahab and Ahmad, another cousin of the appellant, took him to the Police Station where he made a statement before the Sab‑Inspector Mr. Gehimal, who on recording his statement arrested him, secured his blood‑stained clothes and a hatchet and recovered the dead body of Mst. Qaima from a place pointed out by the appellant. The defence of the appellant was that he was falsely implicated by his cousin Saffar (P. W. 6) who had illicit connec tion with Mst. Jamul and wanted to stifle the appellant's objections to such a conduct on the part of Saffar (P. W. 6). Wahab (D. W. 1) and Ahmed (P. W. 7) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version, but there was other evidence in the case and accordingly both the Courts below convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated above. Counsel for the appellant submitted before us that no motive for the crime was established and that there was hardly any reliable evidence in the case on which to base the conviction : but the Chief Court, after a close and careful examination of the evidence, has expressed the view that although the evidence in respect to the extra‑judicial confession, the motive for the crime and the recovery of the hatchet was unreliable, there was no reason to disbelieve (i) the evidence of Mst. Jamul (P. W. 3) that after taking her permission the appellant and Mst. Qaima left together for village Lakhat (ii) the evidence of Sub‑Inspector Gehimal (P. W. 8) that the appellant accompanied by his cousins Wahab and Ahmad appeared at the Police Station and made a statement which led to his arrest (iii) the evidence of Shahnawaz (P. W. 4) that the blood‑stained shirt and loin cloth were recovered from the person of the appellant ; and (iv) the evidence of P. W. 6, Saffar, that the place from which the dead body of Mst. Qaima was recovered was pointed out by the appellant. The above four circumstances have been held by the Chief Court as incompatible with the innocence of the appellant and no reasonable explanation thereof has been offered to us by the defence. We are of opinion that the appellant has been rightly convicted of the offence with which he was charged. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.