1969 PLP 195 (SCMR)

Dr. Tasadduque Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Gul Muhammad Butt, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Masud Akhtar, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 6th December 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑The petitioner has been convicted for the murders of 3 children between the ages of 5 and 12, of one Muhammad who was a brother of the husband of the petitioner's sister. Some 20 or ,25 days before the occurrence out of which this case arises, Mamand, the brother of Muhammad, it appears, beat his wife, Mst. Bhawan for quarrelling with the second wife of his brother and as a result of this bating, Mst. Bhawan died. Mamand was accordingly, prosecuted under section 301 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the case was pending when the present occurrence took place on the morning of the 3rd August 1955, in which three innocent persons lost their lives. the direct evidence against him is that of the mother of the murdered children one Mst. Sattan, and one Ghulam Rasul another boy who was then playing with the deceased. The latter actually saw him killing two of the children. Another witness who was ploughing his field nearby came to the spot attracted by the hue and cry of these women and saw the petitioner running away with the blood‑stained toka in his hand. In addition to this the appellant also made an extra judicial confession before one Mahamadi (P. W. 6) who actually produced him before the police with his blood stained weapon which was subsequently found to be stained with human blood. The only defence set up by the petitioner was one of false implication although no direct enmity of any kind has been shown between these witnesses and the petitioner. We are in agreement with the High Court that mere relationship of these witnesses with the deceased was not sufficient to exclude their evidence in the absence of any other circumstance which could reasonably be excepted to cast doubt on their veracity. Not only has no such circumstance been brought on the record but there is also in fact corroboration of their oral testimony in the shape of the extra‑judicial confession and the seizure of the weapon of offence from the hands of the petitioner at the time of his arrest. The person before whom the extra judicial confession is made is a member of the Union Council of the Chak and is a respectable and disinterested person. The petitioner's denial of having made the extra‑judicial confession is, therefore, false. In this view of the matter we see no ground for interference and dismiss this petition. Leave refused.