1988 P Cr (PLP)

2. The occurrence took place on 12-6-1983 at Deegarwala in the house of the deceased situate in village Kathala at a distance of 4 miles from Police Station Saddar Gujrat. F.I.R. Exh.P.B. is statement of Khadim Hussain P.W.3, father of the deceased which was recorded by Muhammad Safdar, Head Constable P -W.9 at Police Post General Bus Stand on the same day at 6-30 p.m- Formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was drawn up by Ali Akbar A.S.I., P.W.8 on the same day.

3. Mst. Zureena deceased was daughter of Khadim Hussain complainant. She was daughter of the sister of Fazal Ahmad appellant. The appellant was living with his brother-in-law Khadim Hussain complainant for the last 3/4 years before the occurrence. Fazal Muhammad is bachelor. He wanted to marry a girl in exchange of the marriage of Mst. Zureena deceased. Mst. Zureena as well as her father Khadim Hussain complainant was not agreeable to this proposal, hence this occurrence.

4. As far the main occurrence, it has been stated that at the eventful time Mst. Zureena deceased and her younger sister Mst. Sameena P.W.2, aged 12 years, were present in their house. Their parents were out of the house for some job. Fazal Ahmad appellant inflicted injuries with his Toka on the neck and abdomen of Mst. Zureena., who died on the spot. The occurrence was seen by 1st. Sameena Bibi P.W.2. In the meantime, Khadim Hussain complainant came back to his house and saw the appellant coming out of his house with a Toka in his hand. The alarm raised by Mst. Sameena Bibi and Khadim Hussain P W.3 attracted Fazal Hussain and Bahawal Bakhsh. They tried to apprehend the appellant but he made good his escape.

5. On 13-6-1983 at 10-30 a.m. Dr. Ch. Muhammad Aslam P.W.1 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Zureena. He found following injuries on her body. "(1) Incised wound 15 x 3 c. m. , transverse, over front of neck, upper part, above the thyroid cartilage, starting from the level of left ear; to below the level of right ear, cutting all the soft tissues over front of neck including muscles, blood vessels, air passages and oesophagus. 'The injury was bone deep and had produced a slight cut over the front of cervical vertebra. (2) Incised wound 18 x 9 c.m. transversely oblique over the right hypochondria) region of abdomen, extending from right mid axillary line up to the midline of epigastric region of abdomen, with intestines coming out of the abdomen which was widely open. The injury had cut the liver, transverse colon and stomach, The abdomer, contained large amount of dark blood, which was spilling out of the open wound. The stomach was empty. Bladder contained a few milliliters of urine." In his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the, injuries which were sufficient to cause death' in the ordinary course of nature. The injuries were caused by sharp -edged weapon. The death was immediate. The time between death and post-mortem was about 16 to 20 hours. 6 The appellant was arrested on 5-3-1984 by Muhammad Latif, A.S.I. P.W.7. On 10-3-1984, he led to the recovery of Toka (not exhibited) from Band of river Chenab, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. attested by Muhammad Sarwar P.W.5 and Bashir Ahmad (not produced) and Muhammad Latif A.S.I., P.W.7.

7. To prove its case prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Mst. Sameena Bibi P.W.2 and Khadim Hussain P.W.3 gave ocular account of the occurrence. Mst. Sameena Bibi claimed to have seen the appellant causing injuries to Mst. Zareena with his Toka resulting in her death. Khadim Hussain P.W.3 saw the appellant coming out of the house where Mst. Zureena Bibi was murdered: with a Toka in his hand. Khadim Hussain P.W.3 has also deposed about the background of the occurrence. Muhammad Sarwar P.W.5 stated that the appellant had got recovered Toka from Band of river Chenab, Dr. Ch. Muhammad Aslam P.W.1 conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Zureena Bibi deceased. Muhammad Latif, A.S.I. P.W.7 stated that the appellant remained absconder. The rest of the evidence is of formal nature.

8. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances. He raised the plea of false implication. He stated that the deceased had illicit relations with Arshad Taili, so she was killed by her father and brother and that since he had given money to Khadim Hussain complainant and was demanding the same from him, so he was falsely involved in the case. In defence no witness was produced. He, however, gave evidence in disproof of the charge against him. He stated that he used to deal in chaff and had given about 18,000 rupees to the parents of Mst. Zureena for safe custody. Mst. Zureena had illicit relations with Arshad Taili, therefore, she was murdered by her father and brother but the case was lodged against him as he had been asking for the return of the amount.

9. The learned trial Court believing motive, ocular evidence and the medical evidence has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

10. Learned defence counsel argued that Mst. Sameena and Khadim Hussain being closely related to the appellants are not reliable witnesses; that no independent person from the locality has been produced by the prosecution; that the Toka allegedly recovered from the appellant was not stained with blood, that the prosecution evidence is contradictory and that the appellant has falsely been involved in the case because Khadim Hussain was not willing to return Rs.18,000, of the appellant to him. Learned counsel for the State has supported the judgment of the trial Court.

11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. We find that Mst. Sameena Bibi is the real niece of the appellant. She being resident of the house was most natural witness of the occurrence. Her, name is mentioned in the promptly lodged F. I. R. She claims to' have seen the appellant killing the deceased. Her statement is in confirmity with the medical evidence, She has faced the test of cross-examination successfully. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity in her statement. Her statement does not suffer from inconsistency or dishonest improvement and is in consonance with probabilities. We have been very much impressed by the straightforward manner in which Khadim Hussain P.W. made his statement. He could easily say that he had seen the appellant inflicting Toka blow to his daughter but he did not state so. It seems to us that he stated, what he had actually seen. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant had been depositing cash with him or that the appellant had never asked him to return the amount. The appellant is brother of his wife. The appellant was living with him for 3/4 years before the occurrence. He had no enmity with the appellant. He has withstood the test of cross-examination. His statement does not suffer from infirmities such as major contradiction or material discrepancies. He has also deposed about the background of the occurrence, which, in the circumstances of the case, does not seem to be unnatural. On our independent assessment of the evidence, we are of the view that Mst. Sameena Bibi and Khadim Hussain are absolutely dependable witnesses and conviction can safely be sustained on their evidence without any corroboration. The appellant has not, been able to lay down any foundation for his substitution in place of the real culprit. His plea that Mst. Zureena was killed by her father on account of her illicit relations with Arshad Taili, is simply ridiculous. The submissions made by the learned counsel are devoid of force and substance. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the appellant has rightly been convicted under section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of Mst. Zureena Bibi.

12. This brings us to the question of sentence. We have considered this question with utmost care on our part. We have not been able to find out any mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant for lesser penalty. He has killed a young girl of about 14 years simply because she was not agreeable to be given in marriage in exchange of a girl to be married to the appellant. There is thus no option 'but to confirm the sentence of death. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed in toto. M.Y.H./F-71/L Appeal dismissed.