1997SCMR373 (PLP)

MUKHTAR AHMED JUKEJO, J. ‑‑‑This is appeal with permission of this Court against the judgment dated 22‑7‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 168‑89/BWP and Murder Reference No.26‑89/BWP. On 3‑12‑1988 at about 6‑15 p.m. Police Station Dera Nawab Sahib, District Bahawalpur recorded F.I.R. of informant Riaz Ahmad in respect of murder of Mst. Shahida Parveen by appellant Abdul Rashid on the same day at 5‑30 p.m. inside the house of Abdul Khaliq in Chak No.46, Dera Nawab Sahib. The incident was said to have been witnessed besides the first informant, by P.Ws. Abdur Rashid and Khushi Muhammad, who had accompanied the first informant to said house for meeting deceased Mst. Shahida Parveen. The deceased was said to have informed the eye‑witnesses before her death that appellant Abdul Rashid, brother of her husband, had taken from her golden Kantas under duress and that she divulged this to her husband Abdul Khaliq who secured the golden Kantas back from the appellant. The appellant questioned the deceased before giving her Chhuri blows, as to, why she had complained to her husband about the golden Kantas. Police registered the case for the offence punishable under section 302 of P.P.C. During investigation the Investigating Officer arrested the appellant on 4‑12‑1988 and recovered at his instance a blood‑stained Chhuri from roof of Abdul Khaliq's house. Last worn clothes of the deceased were also secured by the investigating S.H.O. after the same were produced by a constable. On completion of investigation the appellant was challaned. The appellant was tried on said charge in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, who at the conclusion of the trial convicted him for the offence punishable under section 302 of P.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer death penalty and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 or to suffer R.I. for six months. The appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before the Lahore High Court under Criminal Appeal No. 168‑89/BWP while reference for confirmation of the death penalty was also made by the Trial Court to the said High Court. Under the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Hence this appeal. Mr. Muhammad Bilal, learned counsel for the appellant raised the following points: ‑‑ (i) That the ocular evidence coming from Riaz Ahmad P.W.8, Abdur Rashid P.W.9 and Khushi Muhammad P.W.10 was highly interested as said witnesses were related to the deceased; (ii) That said witnesses were not of the locality and were chance witnesses; (iii) That in view of the injuries sustained by the deceased, she could not have spoken before the eye‑witnesses whose evidence about motive was based on the information given to them by the deceased; and (iv) That the Trial Court while convicting the appellant had disbelieved the motive as given in the F. I. R. Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned counsel for the State supported the conviction and the sentence and argued that ocular evidence was corroborated by recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri. Complainant Riaz Ahmad P.W.8 while supporting the prosecution story about receipt of Chhuri blows by Mst. Shahida Parveen at the hands of appellant deposed that Mst. Shahida Parveen was his cousin being daughter of his aunt. Abdur Rashid P.W.9 similarly supporting the prosecution evidence, admitted that Mst. Shahida Par veen deceased was his cousin. Khushi Muhammad P.W.10 also supported the incident and deposed that Mst. Shahida Parveen was daughter of his aunt and she was being given Chhuri blows by the appellant. This Court had taken view in the case of Shahab Din v. The State (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 177) that mere fact of relationship does not necessarily render a witness's) account of occurrence subject to doubt; In the case of Nazir and others v. The State (PLD 1962 Supreme Court 269) this Court observed that an "interested witness" means a witness who has a motive for falsely implicating an accused person. In the same case it was held that there may be an interested witness whom the Court regards as incapable of falsely implicating an innocent person. In the instant case there is nothing on record to show that the three eye‑witnesses had any motive to falsely, implicate the appellant, who was brother‑in‑law of their cousin, namely, Mst. Shahida Parveen. Hence the eye‑witnesses cannot be termed as interested if they are related to Mst. Shahida Parveen. While considering second point raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it is to be appreciated that the incident of murder took place inside the house of Abdul Khaliq, husband of the deceased. Obviously the strangers and p outsiders cannot be supposed to be present inside the house of a respectable family. In the circumstances it is far‑fetched idea to look for strangers and outsiders as witnesses in a case of this nature. There are no reasons to discard the ocular evidence. There is force in the third point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Dr. Shabbir Ahmed P.W.6 who performed autopsy on dead body of Mst. Shahida Parveen found the following injuries on her person:‑‑ (1) A stab wound over right side of neck from down to upward obliquely; major vessels of right side of neck were cut. Wound measured about 10 x5 x8 cm. (2) A stab wound over right side of front of chest 10 cm below the nipple of breast. Measurement 4 x 1 x 10 cm. (3) A stab wound on left side 6f front of chest 5 x 2 x 8 cm. (4) There were two superficial wounds on left chest near the injury No.3 2 x 2 x 1 c.m. each. (5) A stab wound over left forearm 6 x 2 x 3 c.m. All the injuries were ante‑mortem in nature and caused by sharp‑edged weapons (Stabs). The Medical‑Officer further found that wall of the chest was penetrated and plura was ruptured by injuries Nos.2 and 3 and that injury No.3 had further cut the left lung and had penetrated in the pericardium and heart. In the circumstances, it is difficult to agree with the opinion of the Medical Officer that duration between injuries and death was half to three minutes. He admitted in ‑cross‑examination that a person becomes unconscious after receiving such injuries. He retracted by saying that the deceased could remain conscious for about half to three minutes. Looking to the gravity of the injuries, it is difficult to agree with the Medical Officer. In any case, evidence of the eye‑witnesses that Mst. Shahida Parveen told them adopt motive for the offence, cannot be treated at par with the ocular account given by the eye‑witnesses. Under his judgment dated 29‑10‑1989, learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly took view as follows:‑‑ ??????????? "... It could hardly be believed that still she was in a position to inform the witnesses about the motive behind the occurrence in such details. She was in grave shock with injuries on her vital part of the body and died immediately thereafter. As such, the version of these witnesses cannot be relied upon so far as the narration of motive is concerned as she was unable to say anything after such grievous injuries." The learned Judges in the High Court did not discuss this aspect of the case in the impugned judgment. The appellant is entitled to be given benefit about non‑proof of the motive alleged against him. Consequently while maintaining conviction of the appellant, we alter the sentence of death to the sentence of life imprisonment which would meet the ends of justice as conceded by the learned State Counsel. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. N.H.Q./A‑1353/S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Sentence reduced.