P (PLP)

Dr. Tassaduque Hussain, and Mian Hamid‑ud‑Din, for Appellant. Vir Sen Sawhney, for Advocate‑General for Respondent. The prosecution case is that Muhammad Khan deceased, aged about 60 years, had a daughter named Nur Fatima, of marriageable age, from his wife Mst. Ghulam Aishan, accused, who is about 35 years of age. He wished to marry Nur Fatima to one Muhammad Zamman, son of Suleman. Mst. Ghulam Aishan wished that the girl should be married to Ghulam Muhammad, approver, who is about 25 years old. Muhammad Khan disregard ed the wishes of his wife in this respect and finally decided to marry Nur Fatima to Muhammad Zaman a month or so before the murder. Mst. Ghulam Aishan spoke about it to Ghulam Muham mad and it was decided by them that Muhammad Khan should be killed so that Nur Fatima may not be married to Muhammad Zaman. Ghulam Muhammad said that he would need some help for committing the murder and Ghulam Aishan prevailed upon her sister's son, Ghulam Yasin accused, aged about 27 years, to participate in the murder on the promise of a handsome reward. It was represented to Ghulam Yasin by Mst. Ghulam Aishan that Muhammad Khan was possessed of considerable wealth. Ghulam Muhammad, approver, approached Muhammad Zaman accused, aged about 30 years, to join him on promise of a similar reward. It was then decided that Mst. Ghulam Aishan should take her husband on some pretence to Nankana Sahib, which is about 4 miles from her village Lait, and return from there late in the evening. The men named above would wait in the way and kill Muhammad Khan. Accordingly on or about the 8th December, 1948, (not 5th December, 1948, as stated by the Sessions Judge) Mst. Ghulam Aishan took Muhammad Khan to Nankana Sahib on a mare which was borrowed from a neighbour. On their return journey at about 9 p. m. they met the accused. Muhammad Zaman accused pulled down Muhammad Khan from the mare. Ghulam Muhammad put a muffler round his neck and twisted it whilst Ghulam Yasin stabbed him in the abdomen with a knife. Mst. Ghulam Aishan stood by holding the mare. Muhammad Khan was then picked up and taken under a tree a few paces away and there his head was severed from his body by Muhammad Zaman. The keys of the safe and a five rupee note were removed from the person of the deceased and his body was thrown into a sugarcane field nearby. The bead was taken to a water channel at a distance of about a furlong and a half and‑ thrown there. Then Mst. Ghulam Aishan went home on the mare accompanied by her nephew Ghulam Yasin. Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Zaman went back by another route. Next morning Muhammad Ashraf (P. W. 10), son of the deceased from another wife, asked 141st. Ghulam Aishan where his father was. She said that he had come with her from Nankana Sahib a part of the way and then gone back. Four or five days passed like that and on the 13th December, 1948, when Shah Muhammad (P. W. 3) went to the sugarcane field which was under his cultivation he found a head less dead body lying in it. He also noticed some footprints in an adjoining wheat field. Shah Muhammad informed his landlord Rai Ahmad Khan who directed him to take the chaukidar and make a report to the police. Shah Muhammad, accordingly, went to Nankana Police Station and made the report Exh. P. E. Rai Ahmad (P. W. 14), who is a lambardar, went to the spot after sending Shah Muhammad to the police station. He saw the dead body and waited there till the police arrived at about 4 p. m. The police took some bloodstained earth from the scene of the crime and the body was identified to be of Muhammad Khan deceased. Jehana tracker (P. W. 15) was called to examine the footprints and some moulds were prepared by the Assistant Sub -Inspector, probably on the following day. Jehana found footprints of three different kinds and about four days later he was called to village Namdar where several men were made to walk and he was asked to pick out the footprints which resembled those seen by him at the spot. One of those impressions was made by a pair of country made shoes and the other by a pair of gurgabis. Jehana picked out these two impressions by the similarity of gait with two of the impressions at the spot. These impressions were made by the approver Ghulam Muhammad and Ghulam Yasin accused. Muhammad Zaman was not present at that time. He appeared before the police on the 2nd January, 1949 ; and 10 days after his arrest, i.e , on the 12th January, 1949, a test identification parade was held in Sub‑Jail, Sheikhupura by Syed Ijaz Hussain " Magistrate 3rd Class, and Jehana tracker picked out the footprints of Muhammad Zaman. The opinion of the tracker regarding the footprints of Ghulam Muhammad and Ghulam Yasin is more significant than in regard to the footprints of Muhammad Zaman because it was on the basis of that opinion that Ghulam Muham mad and Ghulam Yasin were selected for interrogation which led to the detection of the crime. Amir Abdullah, uncle of Ghulam Muhammad, and Muhammad Khan, lambardar, were directed by the police to question Ghulam Muhammad and Ghulam Yasin and find out if they had anything to do with the murder. On the 21st December, 1948, i.e., two days after the parade in village Namdar, Ghulam Muhammad, Ghulam Yasin and Mst. Ghulam Aishan were produced before Malik Atta Ullah Sub‑Inspector (P. W, 21) by Amir Abdullah: He recorded their statements and put them under arrest. The turban of Ghulam Yasin appeared to be blood stained and was taken by the police. Ghulam Muhammad led the police and others to a place in Abbasi minor and dug out from there a bloodstained muffler. Ghulam Muhammad's house was searched and a blood-stained turban was recovered. It was lying hidden under a quilt. A pair of gurgabis was also found in the house. Ghulam Muhammad handed over to the police currency notes worth Rs. 550, and keys (Exh. p. 3) were found hidden in his compound wall which appeared to have been recently built. Ghulam Muhammad produced them by demolishing a part of the wall. He then disclosed that he had buried the head of Muhammad Khan deceased near a khal and took the police there. The place was dug up and the head of the deceased, which was identified by his son Muhammad Ashraf and others, was recovered. On the same day Ghulam Yasin produced currency notes worth Rs. 550, from his suit case and a five‑rupee note from a purse. A pair of country made shoes, which appeared to have been recent ly washed; was also recovered from the suit case. Ghulam Yasin told the police that he had buried the knife Exh. P. 1 near a water -course and produced it from there. The injuries found on the deceased could have been caused with this knife. Mst. Ghulam Aishan took the police to her brother's hose and produced a tin cylinder which was buried in the southern wall of the house. This cylinder contained currency notes worth 600 rupees. According to the approver, she had helped herself to this amount out of the money taken by her from the safe of the deceas ed which she had opened with the keys taken from the dead man and recovered by the police from a wall of the approver's house. She had paid Rs. 550, each to the approver and two accused Muhammad Zaman and Ghulam Yasin. She had left about 1,115 rupees in the safe, presumably not to create a suspicion against herself. This 1,115 rupees was recovered by the police when they had the safe forced open on 18th December, 1948. On 5th January, 1949, Ghulam Muhammad expressed his willingness to become an approver. He was tendered pardon on 7th January, 1949, and made a full statement Exh. P. J. before Bashir Hussain, Magistrate 1st Class, on that day. He appeared as a witness at the trial and gave evidence to the effect mentioned above. The case for the prosecution rests upon the evidence of this approver. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants we are convinced that the approver himself had undoubtedly participated in the crime. The only question is whether his evidence is materially corroborated against the appel lants; two of whom, namely, Muhammad Zaman and Ghulam Yasin were sentenced to death and the third, 141st. Ghulam Aishan to transportation for life, under section 302, Indian Penal Code. The convicts have appealed from this order of conviction and the sentences of death are before us for confirmation. It is well settled law that the evidence of an approver need not be corroborated in every detail of the crime; for, if that were so, the evidence of an approver would be unnecessary. Moreover, corroboration heed not be by direct evidence. It is sufficient if there is circumstantial evidence to show the connection of the accused with the crime and the corroborative evidence need not, by, itself, be sufficient for conviction. All that is necessary is that the story of the approver should be corroborated in some particulars showing or tending to show, that the accused was concerned in they commission of the crime. In this case Ghulam Yasin produced a knife with which the injuries on the deceased could have been inflicted. It was found to be stained with blood by the Chemical Examiner though the report of the Imperial Serologist is not on the record and the origin of the blood has not been determined. A pair of country made shoes Exh. 17, such as that mentioned by the tracker, was re covered from his suit case. He produced currency notes worth Rs. 550, the amount stated by the approver to have been paid to him, and his turban was stained with blood. In our opinion, the evidence of the approver is sufficiently corroborated against Ghulam Yasin appellant, particularly by the knife produced by him from a watercourse. We have not been able to find any reason for the approver to falsely implicate him and we hold him guilty of murder. Mst. Ghulam Aishan is proved, by independent and reliable evidence, to have been determined to marry her daughter Nur Fatima to the approver and the deceased to have equally deter mined not to do so. It has been pointed out by the prosecution that Mst. Ghulam Aishan is only 30 or 35 years old, whereas the deceased was about 60 years of age and it is suggested that she tray have had an affairs with the approver, who is a young man, and may have wished to retain a hold on him by marrying him to her daughter. This may also have been the reason for the decea sed's refusing to bring Ghulam Muhammad into the family. But there is no evidence on this point and the suggestion can only be treated as a possibility. It is also proved that Mst. Aishan took Muhammad Khan from the house to Nankana Sahib and after that he was not seen alive. She produced Rs. 600 which is stated by the approver to have been taken by her as her share. She pro duced it from a tin cylinder buried in the wall of her brother's house. These facts constitute material corroboration of the appro ver's evidence against her and we hold her guilty too. In fact, we are convinced that she was the arch conspirator in this crime. Against Muhammad Zaman the only piece of corroborative evidence is that he was found in possession of Rs.

500. The evidence of Rai Amir Khan lambardar (P. W. 17) is that Muham mad Zaman appellant went to him on the 2nd January, 1949, and asked for his help because, he said, he was innocent. Rai Amir Khan sent a word to Muhammad Khan lambardar who came with Amir Abdullah and the Sub‑Inspector. Rai Amir Khan handed over Muhammad Zaman to the Sub‑Inspector Police and he recovered Rs. 500 from him. There are some differences in the evidence of Muhammad Khan lambardar. Amir Abdullah and the Sub‑Inspector as to how they came for the house of Amir Khan and arrested Muhammad Zaman. Furthermore, it is hard to understand why Muhammad Zanan should have taken Rs. 500 with him when he went to plead innocence before the lambardar. We attach no importance to the identification of his footprints by the tracker 10 days after his arrest and we consider that the posses sion by Muhammad Zaman of Rs. 500, even if true, is capable of innocent interpretation. There is also a suspicion of some ill‑will between him and the approver who admitted that his uncle Amir Abdullah P. W. had brought a criminal case against Muhammad Zaman appellant and some others under section 324/149, Indian Penal Code, and then denied that Muhammad Zaman appellant was one of the accused in that case. We ate, therefore, not satisfied with the evidence again ft Muhammad Zaman appellant and, setting aside his conviction we acquit him. We maintain the convictions of the remaining two appellants; 'namely, Ghulam Yasin and Mst. Ghulam Aishan. The principal oftendar, in our opinion, is Mst. Ghulam Aishan who hatched the conspiracy for the killing of her husband. She has been sentenced to transportation for life. Ghulam Yasin had no personal motive to kill the deceased. He was according to the prosecution itself, prevailed upon by Mst. Ghulam Aishan to do so. He is a misguided youth and acted clearly under the influ ence of his aunt, Ghulam Aishan. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to confirm the extreme sentence of death imposed upon him and, reduce it to transportation for life. To this extent only we accept his appeal. The appeal of Mst. Ghulam Aishan is dismissed. Muhammad Zaman's appeal is accepted and he is ordered to be released from jail. A. H. Appeals partially accepted.