1968 SCMR 91 (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J.-The conviction of the petitioners Ghulam and Nura for the murder of one Muhammad is based on the following evidence:- (1) the testimony of four eye-witnesses, Lai, Nawab, Ratallun and Munshi Allah Ditta ; (2) a prompt report made at 7-30 a.m:, at a police-station 9 miles away, the murder having taken place at about 4 a.m.; (3) the recovery at the instance of Ghulam accused from a place of hiding of a hatchet and kurta, both stained with human blood; and (4) the recovery at the instance of Nura, also from a hiding place of a lathi and a kurta stained with human blood. Ghulam and Nura were arrested in the village on the day the report was made, and produced the above-narrated material pieces of evidence the same day. The injuries of the deceased were seven incised wounds, two contused wounds, a contusion and an abrasion, which support the case that a sharp-edged weapon and a blunt weapon were used. The motive alleged attaches to both the accused. It was that Muhammad was suspected of having an affair with Nura's wife who is Ghulam's sister. The blade of the hatchet recovered at the instance of Ghulam had a large dent, which made it difficult to believe that it could, in that condition, have caused the clear-cut wounds, one of them 5 inches in length found on the deceased. The learned Judges in the High Court thought, for this reason that its recovery had no corroborative value. At the same time, the fact of the dent makes it impossible that this hatchet and its recovery are merely procured pieces of evidence. It could be that the dent was caused when a piece broke off during the attack or perhaps between that time and the recovery. But there seems no reason to doubt that the recovery was made in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution. The bloodstained clothes so recovered provide corroborative evidence against the accused persons. Mr. Jeremy urged that the witnesses were Lal, the father of the deceased, two his relations Nawab and Ratallun, and a fourth person, who was under obligation to Lal, namely Munshi Allah Ditta, to whom Lal had given shelter in his house for some months at, an earlier period. Nawab is the owner of the shop adjoining that of the deceased, and it was natural for both of them to sleep in the open outside their shops. Lal was allegedly sleeping by the side of his son, as threats to murder him had been held out by the accused persons. Ratallun was going out in the early dawn to plough his fields when he heard the alarm and reached the spot. The scene of the murder was established by the presence of a blood-stain under the cot on which the deceased was attacked. As for Munshi Allah Ditta, it was said that he had come to Nawab's place to borrow a cart and had stayed the night there, his home being a mile and a half away. He was a friend of Lal and Nawab apparently, but he had no reason whatsoever to give totally false evidence in a case of a capital offence against the accused persons. Mr. Jeremy tried to base an argument, on the fact that a small quantity of digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased, to the affect that the murder was committed earlier than 4 a. m. Whenever during the night it was committed, at least Nawab, Lal and Munshi. Allah Ditta who were sleeping by the side of the deceased would be witnesses. Although it was night time, the accused being known persons, identification was possible. It was argued further that Ratallun had no good reason for passing close to the scene of the attack. The point is of no importance, in view of the other cogent evidence to prove that the culprits were Ghulam and Nura and no others. All the points raised by Mr. Jeremy went merely to the appreciation of the evidence, which this Court does not usually / undertake in its special jurisdiction in criminal matters. They are found also to be without substance. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.