2006 PLP 1744 (MLD)

KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 23-11-2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, whereby, after having tried the appellant in the case registered vide F.I.R. No.165 of 1999 under section 302, P.P.C., Police Station Saddar Arifwala, District Pakpattan Sharif, the appellant was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. and sentenced to imprison ment for life with a compensation of Rs.20,000 to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. in default whereof to further undergo S.-I. for six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also extended to him.

2. The prosecution story, as unfolded through F.I.R. (Exh.PA/1) registered on the statement of the complainant, briefly stated is that marriage of Mst. Niaz Bibi was solemnized with Muhammad Yasin about twenty years ago out of which wedlock three children were born who were alive; that Muhammad Yasin used to level allegation of immorality against Mst. Niaz Bibi, which led to frequent altercations between them; that on the morning preceding to 23-3-1999 due to afore-mentioned reason, an altercation took place between them whereupon she called Liaqat Ali complainant, Sikandar, Muhammad Yousaf and Faiz Ahmad P.Ws. to her house to settle the dispute between the parties; that a lot of time had been consumed there and as such the P.Ws. stayed in her house; that at about 2 a.m. the complainant party heard hue and cry being raised in the room whereupon they rushed inside the room and witnessed Muhammad Yasin accused throttling Mst. Niaz Bibi in consequent whereof she died, hence the case.

3. After having completed usual formalities and investigation of the case, the police submitted challan against the accused before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction, where, in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined seven prosecution witnesses.

4. The accused, when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case, attributed their involvement in the present case to false implication and' claimed trial.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of this appeal contended that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case; that the presence of the eye-witnesses at the place of occurrence was not proved and more so that they are related to the deceased; that the said eye-witnesses are not residents of the vicinity and have failed to prove their presence at the spot; that there are three minor children of the appellant that there are contradictory statements of both the eye-witnesses; that there is a delay of six hours in lodging the F.I.R.; that the sentence is severe; that the impugned judgment has been passed against the weight of evidence on record; that it is based on surmises and conjectures; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts and that, in the afore-referred circumstances, the appellant is entitled to acquittal from this Court.

6. On the other hand, while defending the impugned judgment of conviction, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, submits that there was no motive or enmity to falsely implicate the appellant; that even no suggestion was made in this regard; that since the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond an iota of doubt, therefore, in the afore-referred circumstances the appeal filed by the appellant against the said judgment is liable to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the impugned judgment and the record with their able assistance and have also given exhaustive consideration to the arguments of the respective parties.

8. Complainant in this case is Liaqat Ali who is real brother of the deceased and brother-in-law of the appellant ("Sala"). He appeared before the learned trial Court as P.W.3 to support the prosecution story given in the F.I.R. He remained consistent on all material particulars. He was subjected to lengthy cross-examination (consisting of three pages) but nothing could be shaken. He also offered reasonable and plausible explanation for being present at the place of occurrence to get the matter patched up between the appellant and his deceased and it was due to lengthy arguments on both the sides due to which they stayed there at the night. It is common in our society that whenever a dispute arose between the wife and the husband, normally lady calls her brother/parents to reprimand the husband, so, complainant's coming to her house to get the matter settled along with the other witnesses, is quite natural and is not against the mind of a normal prudence. Faiz Ahmad appeared as P.W.4. He is paternal cousin of the deceased and his company with the complainant was also natural. He corroborated the statement of P.W.3 on all material particulars. Both of them, although are closely related to the deceased but they had no enmity or motive to falsely implicate the appellant in the case in question. Their testimony is confidence inspiring which was rightly relied upon by the learned trial Court. This Court holds so. The ocular account in this case is further corroborated by the medical evidence which fits in the events narrated by the eye-witnesses. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that even testimony of the interested witnesses is trustworthy and inspires confidence if there is no enmity or ill will to falsely implicate the accused. So far as delay of six hours in lodging the F.I.R. is concerned, it is also settled by now that such type of delay is not fatal to the prosecution case per se. More so the Police Station is at a distance of four miles from the place of occurrence, incident took place during the night time and it is quite natural that they must have waited for rising of the sun to approach the police station in the light of the day. Both the eye-witnesses have proved their presence at the spot and this Court has no reason to discard their testimony which is further corroborated by the medical evidence. It is also settled by now that the approach of the Court should be dynamic and the Courts should weigh with the quality of the evidence and not the quantity. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view while awarding imprisonment for life to the appellant. Even otherwise, there is nothing on record to suggest for consideration of the said ground because the appellant has not taken even a defence plea in this regard. I have gone through appellant's statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which he has made bald allegations of ill repute regarding the deceased lady who was his wife. On such an abortive attempt to disgrace the honour of a lady, he cannot mw be given any further benefit. Even otherwise, the husbands cannot be given a license to kill their wives on such type of bald assertions. Such like act is neither permitted in law nor is recognized in any society.

9. After having adjudged the case from every angle, having sifted grain from the chaff and after having applied independent judicial mind, this Court is the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt to sustain conviction. This Court seems no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is maintained in toto. N.H.Q./M-1315/L Appeal dismissed.