1985 P Cr (PLP)

3. Mst. Inayat Bibi P.W. 9 is the wife of Muhammad Ramzan appellant. Mst. Sakina Bibi was the sister of Mst. Inayat Bibi. Barkat Ali P.W.10 is the son of the appellant.

4. The motive as alleged by the prosecution was that Muhammad Ramzan appellant wanted to contract second marriage. Mst. Inayat Bibi his wife used to quarrel with him as she did not like it. Mst. Sakina Bibi the sister‑in‑law of the appellant, was also opposing the second marriage of the appellant, hence this occurrence.

5. As far the main occurrence it has been stated that the marriage of Barkat Ali P.W.10 was to be solemnized on 15‑5‑1981. The pre‑marriage ceremony was to take place on the night of occurrence. Mst. Sakina Bibi deceased alongwith her husband Muhammad Siddique complainant had come to attend the ceremony. Muhammad Ramzan who had deserted his house on account of quarrel with his wife, also came back for participating in the marriage of his son Barkat Ali P.W. At about 9 p.m. Mst. Inayat Bibi came in the lane in front of her house when Muhammad Ramzan appellant and Sabir Ali acquitted co‑accused armed with Chhuris came there. They opened attack and gave Chhuri blows to Mst. Inayat Bibi on her shoulder, thigh and the back of chest. In the meantime Mst. Sakina Bibi, Barkat Ali and Muhammad Siddique were attracted to the spot. Sabir Ali caught hold of Mst. Sakina Bibi while Muhammad Ramzan stabbed her with Chhuri. She fell down. The appellant and his co‑accused then ran away. Inayat Bibi and Mst. Sakina Bibi were removed to Mayo Hospital, Lahore. Mst. Sakina Bibi succumbed to the injuries before any medical aid could be given to her Mst. Inayat Bibi was however, admitted in the hospital.

6. On 15‑5‑1981 at 12‑30 p.m. Dr. Muhammad Siddique conducted post‑mortem examination on the dead body of Mat. Sakina Bibi and found the following injuries:‑ (i) A stab incised wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. placed vertically on the lower part of chest left side subcostal area, interior axillary line. The cemntum was coming out of the wound. On dissection; under the injury the left 8th inter costal space, left dome of dis‑pharam, spleen through and through with blood vessels, tail of pancreaes and stomach all were cut. The abdominal cavity was full with blood (2 pints of blood) and semi‑digested food was also scattered in the abdominal cavity. On the same day at 9‑30 p.m. Dr. Munawwar Saeed Bokhari had examined Mst. Inayat Bibi. He found five incised wounds on the left and right forearms, thigh and lumber region. The injuries were caused by sharp‑edged weapon within few hours of the examination. The injury on the thigh was grievous while rest were simple. Dr. Muhammad Siddique had also examined Muhammad Ramzan appellant on 20‑5‑1981. He found one stab wound and two superficial incised wounds on his person. The injuries were caused by sharp‑edged weapon and were simple in nature.

7. Muhammad Ramzan appellant was arrested on 19‑5‑1981. On the next day he led to the recovery of the blood‑stained Churri P.5 which was taken into possession vide memo. P.B. attested by Khushi Muhammad P.W.4 and Ejaz Ahmad (not produced). The recovery was effected by Muhammad Iqbal S.I. P.W.13. The Serologist report Exh.P.L. reveals that the Chhuri was stained with human blood.

8. The trial Court has disbelieved the recovery, evidence in pare. 56 of its judgment.

9. To prove its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Dr. Muhammad Siddique has proved post‑mortem report. Dr. Munawwar Saeed P.W.11 has proved the medical legal report of Mst. Inayat Bibi P.W.9, Barkat Ali P.W. 10 and Mst. Inayat Bibi P.W.9 have given the ocular account of the occurrence. They claim to have seen Muhammad Ramzan appellant causing injuries with Chhuri on Mst. Sakina Bibi deceased. Mst. Inayat Bibi P.W.9 stated that Muhammad Ramzan appellant and Sabir Ali acquitted accused had injured her with Chhuries before Mst. Sakina Bibi was done to death. The recovery witness namely Khushi Muhammad stated that Muhammad Ramzan appellant had got recovered blood‑stained Chhuri P.5. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

10. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all incriminating circumstances. While raising plea of false implication he stated: ‑ "Mst. Inayat Bibi had strained relations with me since long. She had illicit relations with Muhammad Shafi, a neighbour. I used to admonish to cut of the relations with Muhammad Shafi, but she refused and informed Muhammad Shafi about it. I have been substituted in place of Muhammad Shafi by Mst. Inayat Bibi and her son because they wanted to get rid of me. I had mortgaged my house to Mehraj Din, the brother of Mst. Inayat Bibi. Mst. Inayat Bibi and Barkat are living in the same house. Mehraj Din has now in connivance with Mst. Inayat Bibi forged a transfer deed of the house transferring it to Mehraj Din. However, all the bills of water, electricity and property, etc., are delivered at my name. One of the bills Exh.D.E. is a water bill for June, 1979. As I did not maintain Mst. Inayat Bibi and her children, they have got no love for me. P.W. Barkat Ali is under a strong influence of his mother. Barkat Ali and Mst. Inayat Bibi substituted me for Muhammad Shafi in order to get rid of me through the process of Court." His version was that in fact Muhammad Shafi had attacked and injured him and in this sequence Mst. Inayat Bibi and Mst. Sakina Bibi also received injuries at the hands of Muhammad Shafi. In defence he tendered water bill Exh.D.E. He did not produce any witness in defence. It may be noted here that Sabir Ali co‑accused had produced Zahoor‑ul‑Haq Farooqui D.S.P. D.W.1 to show that he was declared innocent in challan Exh.D.F. prepared by the defence witness Muhammad Ashraf S.1. was also produced as defence witness. He stated that during the investigation Sabir Ali co‑accused was found innocent.

11. The trial Court while giving the benefit of doubt has acquitted Sabir Ali co‑accused and believing motive, ocular evidence and medical evidence has convicted the appellant.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the eye‑witnesses are not reliable; that the relations 6f Mst. Inayat Bibi and Barkat Ali P.Ws. were strained with the appellant; that there is no independent corroboration to their statements and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the alternative the learned counsel argued that from the circumstances it appears that since Mst. Inayat Bibi had driven out the blind mother of the appellant from the house on the same day, therefore, the appellant had attacked her and Mst. Sakina Bibi under grave and sudden provocation. Conversely the learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court.

13. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not beer, able to pursuade myself to agree with him. I find that it is a case of prompt F.I.R. The names of the eye‑witnesses and the manner of the occurrence are detailed therein: Mst. Inayat Bibi and Barkat Ali the two eye‑witnesses are the wife and real son of the appellant respectively. They have fully implicated the appellant for the murder of Mst: Sakina Bibi. I do not see any inherent infirmity in their statements. The occurrence took place in the lane in front of their house. Barkat Ali had a probable cause to be present near the place of occurrence. By the fact of injuries on her person,, the presence of Mst. Inayat Bibi on the spot is very much established. The number of the injury on Mst. Sakina deceased and the number of the accused named by these witnesses do commensurate. The appellant has failed to lay down any foundation for his substitution in place of Muhammad Shafi the alleged real culprit, more particularly by his real son Barkat Ali P.W. Had the appellant not been the assailant of his mother and the murderer of his mother's sister, then Barkat Ali would not have deposed against his father. The appellant has failed to establish his plea through direct or indirect evidence. In the circumstances of the case there is even no reasonable possibility of the defence version being true. In this view of the matter I am fully convinced that Muhammad Ramzan appellant and none else had caused death of Mst. Sakina Bibi deceased and injuries to Mst. Inayat Bibi. The case of Sabir Ali was quite distinguishable inasmuch as he even allegedly did not cause any injury to the deceased.

14. Coming to the alternative arguments of the learned counsel that the appellant had acted in grave and sudden provocation, I find that neither the plea of grave and sudden provocation was specifically raised by the appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. nor the same is spelt out from the evidence or circumstance of the case. No doubt it is in the evidence that Inayat Bibi had driven out the blind mother of the appellant at some time on the same day but that incident would not have given any grave and sudden provocation against Mst. Sakina Bibi. There is nothing on record to show that Muhammad Ramazan appellant had lauched attack on Mst. Inayat Bibi on account of her having driven out the mother of the appellant. The location of the body of Mst. Sakina Bibi selected by the appellant; the kind of the weapon used by him, force with which he stabbed the deceased and the damage done by the injury, indicate that Muhammad Ramzan appellant had no intention other than that of causing the death of the deceased. He at least fully knew that the injury inflicted by him was most likely to cause the death. For all these reasons, I am satisfied that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.

15. For what has been said above, the appeal is dismissed. M.Y.H. Appeal dismissed.