1986 PLP 2809 (MLD)

Leaving the dead body in the custody of the P.Ws., Muhammad Siddiq complainant proceeded to police station for lodging the report. Sana Ullah, Sub‑Inspector, met him on the way at Wariachanwala Bridge and he reported the occurrence to him at 6‑30 a.m. vide his statement Exh. P.C., on the basis of which formal F.I.R. (Exh. P.C.1) was recorded at Police Station Samundari at 7‑00 a.m.

3. After recording the statement of the complainant, the Sub -Inspector reached the spot. He prepared the injury statement (Exh. P.N.) and inquest report (Exh. P.O.) of the dead body and despatched the same to the mortuary for post‑mortem examination. He secured some bloodstained earth from the spot and made it into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P.E. He also secured cot (Exh. P.2), pillow (Exh. P.3), Chadar (Exh. P.4) and shirt (Exh. P.5), all blood‑stained, vide memo. Exh. P.F. On the same day F.C. Riaz produced the last‑worn Chadar (Exh. P.1) of the deceased before the Sub‑Inspector who took the same into his possession vide memo. Exh. P.D. The Sub‑Inspector arrested Ramzan, Sher Muhammad, Sharif and Latif accused on 4th July, 1980. Sher Muhammad and appellants were wearing blood‑stained shirts. He removed shirt (Exh. P.6) from the person of Ramzan appellant and made the same into sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P.G. He also removed shirt (Exh. P.7) from the person of Sher Muhammad appellant and made the same into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P.H. On 8th July, 1980 Ramzan appellant led the police to his cattle‑shed and from there got recovered blood‑stained Toka (Exh. P.8) which was made into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P.J. On the same day Sher Muhammad appellant led the police to his cattle‑shed and got recovered blood‑st4ined Toka (Exh. P.9) which was made into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. K. Acquitted accused Latif led the police to his residential Kotha and got recovered hatchet (Exh. P.10) vide memo. Exh. P.L. Acquitted accused Sharif also led the police to his residential Kotha and got recovered Hatchet (Exh. P.11) vide Exh. P.M. Muhammad Ali accused was arrested on 9th July, 1980. After the investigation, the accused persons were challaned.

4. On 3rd July, 1980 Dr. Ahmad Saeed Sheikh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Tandlianwala conducted post‑mortem examination on, the dead body of Ali Akbar deceased and found the following injuries on it: ‑ (1) An incised wound 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. x muscle deep, under the chin on right side. (2) The check was cut through at the level of its root at sixth cervical vertebra. Only tag of skin was left on back of neck with which the head was connected with rest of the body. (3) Incised wound 10 c.m. x 7 c.m. x bone deep on front of left shoulder. (4) An incised wound 3 c. m. x 1 c. m. x skin deep on top of right shoulder. Sixth vertebra, spinal cord, trachea, oesophagus and, all big blood vessels were cut under injury No.2. All the injuries were antemortem, caused by sharp‑edged weapon. In the opinion of the doctor, death was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injury No.2 which was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Time between injuries and death was immediate and between death and post‑mortem examination 8 to 18 hours. .

5. At the trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all and its mainstay is the testimony of Muhammad Siddiq complainant and Munshi Khan (P.W.7) who furnished the ocular account of the occurrence. The prosecution also relied on the evidence relating to motive and recoveries and the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist, according to which the blood‑stained clothes removed from the persons of the appellants and the blood‑stained weapons recovered from them were stained with human blood.

6. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and denied the prosecution allegations against them. The appellants admitted that 'Mat. Khurshid Bibi was their real paternal‑aunt. They, however, denied the allegation that she was abducted by Ali Akbar deceased. They maintained that she was "lawfully wedded to deceased Ali Akbar". They further stated that the deceased right from the date of marriage resided in their village. When asked why the P.Ws. had deposed against them, they stated that the deceased was killed during darkness by unidentified persons and they have been falsely implicated due to enmity. They further stated that the complainant was annoyed with their father because of dispute over the 'nikal' of water and Munshi Khan was annoyed because his wife was deprived of her right in property of their grand‑father who gave the entire property to their father. Acquitted accused Muhammad Ali stated that his father had transferred the entire land to him depriving the wife of Munshi Khan of the right in property. (The wife of Munshi Khan is the sister of Muhammad Ali accused and paternal‑aunt of Ramzan and Sher Muhammad appellants). Acquitted accused Latif stated that he was suspected of illicit relations with the daughter of the complainant who had openly declared that he would teach him a lesson. Acquitted accused Muhammad Sharif also made a similar statement. No evidence was led in defence.

7. The learned trial Judge accepted the prosecution evidence against the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Their co‑accused Muhammad Ali, Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Latif were, however, acquitted on the benefit of doubt.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that Mst. Khurshid Bibi was allegedly abducted by the deceased twenty‑five years back when the appellants were not even born, therefore, motive alleged by the prosecution is inadequate and too remote to have prompted the appellants to kill the deceased. He further submits that both the eye-witnesses are interested, their presence at the spot is not established and, in any case, the occurrence having taken place in the dark hours, they were not in a position to identify the assailants. The evidence relating to recoveries has been assailed on the ground that no independent and disinterested witness was associated in the recovery proceedings‑. Learned counsel for the complainant and the State, on the other hand, submit that the presence of the eye‑witnesses at the spot is fully established and their evidence finds corroboration from medical evidence, motive and recoveries, therefore, the same has been rightly accepted by the trial Court. against the appellants.

9. The prosecution version of the occurrence is supported by Muhammad Siddiq complainant (P.W.6) and Munshi Khan (P.W.7). The complainant is the real brother of the deceased and Munshi Khan is their cousin. However, their mere relationship with the deceased does not constitute any ground for discarding their evidence as worthless. Munshi Khan P.W. is also very closely related to the appellants. His wife is the real sister of their father acquitted accused Muhammad Ali. Muhammad Siddiq complainant admitted in cross‑examination that his wife's brother Muhammad Siddiq had a dispute with Muhammad Ali accused "on the nikal of water". Relying on this statement, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the complainant was inimical towards Muhammad Ali accused and his sons, i.e. the appellants. The contention has no force. The dispue, if any, was between acquitted accused Muhammad All and aforementioned Siddiq. The complainant was neither a party to it nor it was so serious a matter as could induce the complainant to falsely implicate any person in a heinous crime like murder. Evidence of Munshi Khan P.W. was assailed on the ground that he was inimical towards the accused because his wife was deprived of her right in the property of her father who had transferred the entire land to his son Muhammad Ali (acquitted accused). I am not impressed by his argument. The grievance of Munshi Khan P.W., if any, could be against the father of his wife who transferred the entire land to his son. Munshi Khan P.W. is very closely related to the appellants and I am not convinced that he would falsely implicate them in a case involving capital punishment merely for the reason that their grand‑father had transferred his entire land to their father.

10. The presence of both the eye‑witnesses at the spot was quite natural. The prosecution version that at the fateful time the deceased was sleeping near his cattle on the Katcha road, has not bee In controverted. The complainant stated that 20/25 days before the occurrence, the deceased started cultivating the land with him. This version was not challenged by the defence. It was rather suggested to the complainant that under a mutual agreement one of them was to sleep at night at the Dhari. The occurrence took place in the month of July. In the summer season the cattle are gathered in the open space and generally more than one person sleep there at night to keep watch over them. The presence of Muhammad Siddiq who had joint cultivation with the deceased, was therefore, quite natural. Munshi Khan P.W. was present in his own field at a distance of two Acres to plough the land and was attracted to the spot on hearing the alarm of the complainant. His presence, too, is neither unnatural nor unusual. His statement regarding the actual occurrence was not seriously challenged in cross‑examination. Both the eye‑witnesses have given a consistent account of the occurrence. The occurrence took place on a moonlit night and the appellants were previously known to the eye‑witnesses. There was, therefore, no possibility of mistaken identification.

11. The ocular evidence against the appellants finds full corroboration from medical evidence and recovery of blood‑stained clothes from their persons and blood‑stained weapons at their instance which were found to be stained with human blood. Both the appellants were arrested on the next day of the occurrence and blood‑stained shirts were removed from their persons. On 8th July, 1980 they led to the recovery of blood‑stained Tokas. These recoveries are supported by Ali Hassan (P.W.8) and Sana Ullah S.H.O. (P.W.9). No doubt, Ali Hassan P.W. is the real brother of the deceased, but there is nothing on the record to show that he was inimically disposed towards the appellants. Sana Ullah S.H.O. too, had no motive to show false recoveries against the appellants. His statement regarding recoveries was not seriously challenged in cross‑examination. The parcels containing the blood‑stained shirts and Tokas were sent to the Chemical Examiner on .12th July, 1980. According to the report of the Serologist, all these articles were stained with human blood. These pieces of evidence lend substantial support to the ocular testimony.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that according to the prosecution Mst. Khurshid Bibi was abducted twenty‑five years back when the appellants were not even born, therefore, the motive alleged by the prosecution was inadequate and too remote to have induced them to commit the murder. He further submitted that Mst. Khurshid Bibi was the best witness of the motive but she was not produced by the prosecution, therefore, the motive remains unsubstantiated. Be that as it may, the weakness of motive or absence of its proof cannot be a ground for rejecting the direct evidence of eye‑witnesses which is otherwise of reliable character. If the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt by direct evidence. then it is immaterial whether the motive has been established or not. In this case ocular evidence finds full corroboration from the medical evidence and the recovery of blood‑stained clothes and blood‑stained weapons from the appellants which were found stained with human blood. I am, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution had brought home the charge to Muhammad Ramzan and Sher Muhammad appellants and they were rightly convicted under section 302/34, P.P.C. It is the prosecution's own case that the murder was committed to vindicate the family honour, therefore, the sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Its. 10,000 each awarded by the trial Court is appropriate. In the F.I.R. it is nowhere stated that Muhammad Ali accuse was present at a distance of 20/25 Karams from the spot and had exhorted his co‑accused to kill the deceased. Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Latif accused are not shown to have any motive to join hands with Muhammad Ramzan and Sher Muhammad in the commission of murder. Except proverbial Lalkara, no overt act has been attributed to them. In the circumstances, no ground for interference with the order of their acquittal is made out.

13. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal and both the Criminal Revisions (Nos. 580 of 1982 and 658 of 1982) are dismissed.