1990 PLP 254 (MLD)

(3) An incised wound on palmar aspect of terminal phalanx of right thumb size 1‑1/2 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. (4) An incised wound on terminal phalanx of right index ringer size 1 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on palmar aspect. (5) An incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on terminal phalanx of middle right finger on palmar aspect. (6) An incised wound 1 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep on terminal phalanx of right finger of right hand on palmar aspect. (7) A lenear abrasion 4 cm x 1/2 cm x peeling of skin above left axilla and direction. In his opinion, injury No.1 was individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and injuries Nos.2 to 7 were not of fatal nature. He did not observe any injury on the lower part of the body of the deceased.

6. After the completion of the investigation, the challan of both the appellant and Manzoor Hussain, was submitted. The appellant was, however, placed in column No.2 of the challan, as she was found innocent by the Investigating Officer. Manzoor Hussain died and the case against him stood abated. As a sequel to the impugned trial, the appellant was awarded the afore mentioned punishment.

7. Sufi Muhammad Yaseen PW‑4, who is the brother of the deceased, hay stated that on the night of occurrence, he was asleep in his house and was attracted by the alarm heard from the house of Gul Muhammad and he saw Manzoor Hussain having mounted on the chest of Gul Muhammad and cutting his throat with a Chhuri whereas Mst. Naziran Mai had caught hold of the legs of his brother. He has also stated the motive for the commission of this crime that Manzoor Hussain had developed guilty associations with Mst. Naziran, Mai and in order to clear their way, both of them murdered Gul Muhammad. According to this witness, Manzoor Hussain scaled over the wall after threatening them with dire consequences by brandishing his Chhuri and ran away and the appellant was apprehended at the spot. The house of Gul Muhammad was at a distance of twenty feet from the house of the complainant and the house of his cousin Abdul Karim intervened his house and the house of the deceased. According to the complainant, Abdul Karim was awake at that time, but he did not come to the house of Gul Muhammad. He has conceded the fact that their grandfather owned eight shops and two shops were given to the mother of Mst. Naziran Mai appellant within his life time, which was in possession of the brothers of the appellant. It was suggested, to them that the complainant party wanted to have possession of those shops and, therefore, the appellant was involved in a false case. This suggestion was denied by this witness.

8. Muhammad Ismail PW‑5, who is a paternal cousin of the deceased, has corroborated the fact that they were asleep in the vacant plot lying on the northern side of the house of the deceased in summer season and Ghulam Rasool and Munir were also sleeping near them. He has added that on the alarm raised by Gul Muhammad, they went there and saw Manzoor Hussain cutting the neck of Gul Muhammad with a Chhuri and the appellant had held the legs of her husband. He has stated that the complainant had reached there after a short while by crossing over the wall. He has corroborated the incident of making love by the appellant and Manzoor Hussain, as seen by the complainant's brother Habib.

9. Ghulam Rasool PW‑6 who was a neighbour of Gul Muhammad, was also attracted to the spot and had seen Manzoor Hussain cutting the throat of Gul Muhammad like that of a goat and Mst. Nazir Mai, had held Gul Muhammad by his legs. He has also depicted the motive for the commission of this crime.

10. Muhammad Munir PW‑7, who is a first cousin of Gul Muhammad deceased, has corroborated the incident like his fellow‑deponents. He has stated that Muhammad Ismail was ahead of them, as he had entered the house of Gul Muhammad firstly. He denied the suggestion that he had caught hold of accused by his hands, on which he had threatened.

11. Ameer Azam Beg Inspector Police PW‑11, who had investigated the case and had effceted the recovery of the Chhuri from Manzoor Hussain accused, has proved the inquest report Ex. P.J. and has stated that the appellant was found innocent as a consequence of his investigation and he had mentioned this fact it his report under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. His investigation was verified by Mr. Asif Nawaz A.S.P.

12. The appellant has explained the incident as under:‑‑ "However, the correct position is that on the night of occurrence, I was sleeping alongwith my two children while I was pregnant by nine months (I delivered a child in Jail after fifteen days of the occurrence) when 1 felt a movement in the Charpai of my husband Gul Muhammad deceased. I got up and saw that the throat of Gul Muhammad deceased had been cut and Manzoor Hussain accused, who was holding a Chhuri in his hands threw that Chhuri on the floor and himself ran away crossing over the wall. I raised hue and cry which attracted Ismail and the servant of Tehsildar, who are my neighbours. All the four witnesses, who are my cousins and reside at a distance of 12 shops across the road reached there quite late. My grandfather had four sons including my father, who has died, hence my grandfather gave one fourth of his property to my brother which was the share of my father and also to me. On this, my paternal uncles and his sons nursed a grudge against me and while my husband was killed, they thought that the entire property will go to us, hence they have falsely involved me in this case. Manzoor Hussain deceased had quarrelled with my husband on gambling but I do not know why he had killed my husband."

13. In this case, the P.Ws. are the relatives of the deceased with the exception of one neighbour. Manzoor Hussain is stated to have slaughtered Gul Muhammad with his Chhuri when he was not expected to make a noise. The witnesses were asleep at a short distance and it is not credible that they were awakened by the alarm of Gul Muhammad and when they went there they saw the entire incident of murder and the appellant holding the legs of her husband. The appellant was at the stage of advanced pregnancy at the time of this incident and she delivered a child fifteen days after her arrest in Jail. She was not expected to indulge in the ugly act of murder of her husband at that stage: It is not plausible that all the P.Ws., who were attracted to the spot, had seen the appellant holding the legs of her husband. The police investigation shows that she was found innocent. The simple fact that she had an affair with Manzoor Hussain accused was not enough to involve her in the case of murder of her husband. Habib, who had seen Manzoor Hussain making love with the appellant, was not examined as a witness and what all the PWs say about it is nothing more than an necessary.

14. I. therefore, extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant, accept her appeal and quash the conviction and sentence awarded to her and acquit her. She was released on hail. She is discharged of her hail bond. N.H.Q./N‑323/L Appeal accepted.