1989 P Cr (PLP)

(2) An incised wound 10 c.m. x 2‑1/2 c.m. x muscle deep on the front of neck, 2 c.m. below injury No. 1. (3) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep on the front of neck just near injury No.2. (4) An incised wound 12 c.m. x 2‑1/2 c.m. x muscle deep on the left side of neck 1 c.m. below injury No.1. (5) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep on the left side of chin. (6) An incised wound 5 c.m. x 1 c.m. x muscle deep on the left mandible 1- 1/2 c.m. below lower lip. (7) An incised wound 10 c.m. x 1 c.m. on the left side of left cheek, upper lip was cut on left side. (8) Incised wound 3‑1/2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x muscle deep on the left side of neck 1 c.m. below the left mandible. (9) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x muscle deep on the left side of neck 1/2 c.m. below, injury No.8. (10) Incised wound 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x 2 c.m. on the right side of abdomen 4 c.m. above the right iliaocrest. Only muscle was cut but peritoneum was not penetrated. On internal examination, he had found the thorax, layranx and trachea exposed externally. Blood vessels were found cut at the site of injuries of the neck. On examination of the abdomen, it was found that oesophagus wall was exposed externally due to neck injuries. Death, according to opinion of the doctor, had resulted due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

6. Ocular account was deposed to by Ata Muhammad complainant (P.W.5) and Ghulam Ahmad P.W.7. Ata Muhammad complainant repeated the facts given by him in the F.I.R. However, while narrating motive for the occurrence, he added that Mst. Mastoor Bibi, whose engagement with Zahoor Ahmad appellant was broken, had been married to his son Nazar Muhammad some 15 days before the‑ occurrence, as a result of which Zahoor Ahmad bore a grudge against his son. He also added that Mst. Mastoor Bibi was born from the first wife of Abdur Rehman, namely, Mst. Manzuran.and that the marriage of Mst: Mastoor Bibi with his son was arranged by Mst. Manzuran against the wishes of Abdur Rehman, and Zahoor Ahmad appellant had committed the murder of his son at the instigation of Abdur Rehman. He added that this fact, he had learnt from his uncle Imam Din on 21‑9‑1984, i.e. on the day following the day of occurrence. He stated that he had told this fact to the Sub‑Inspector and produced Mst. Azam Khatoon and Imam Din before Ijaz Hussain S.I. against Abdur Rehman but he let off Abdur Rehman, whereupon he filed complaint Exh.P.E. in Court against Abdur Rehman alongwith Zahoor Ahmad. He also stated about having witnessed the recovery of blood‑stained earth from the spot. The betrothal of Mst. Mastoor Bibi with Zahoor Ahmad appellant, according to him was arranged a year before the occurrence. He denied the suggestion that Mst. Mastoor Bibi was never betrothed with the appellant or that he had created a false story for setting up motive. The Dara, according to him was not occupied by the owners as they were not living in the village. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was sleeping alone in the Dara and he was murdered by some unknown persons during night. Ghulam Ahmad P.W.7 corroborated the statement made by P.W.5. He denied the suggestion that Ata Muhammad P.W.5 was his Saipy or Mueen. The suggestion that he was present when the police arrived at the spot and he had refused to make a statement, was also denied by him. According to him, he had left the spot after the occurrence and had returned to the spot in the morning and made statement to the police. The suggestion that he had not witnessed the occurrence, was denied by him.

7. The evidence of recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri and blood‑stained clothes of the appellant recovered at his instance, was deposed to by Fateh Muhammad Constable P.W.1. The same has been corroborated by Ijaz Hussain S.I. who appeared as P.W.9. The Sub‑Inspector also stated about having registered the case and of having arrested the appellant. During cross- examination, he stated that he had reached the spot at 9‑15 p.m. He explained that although he had handed over the dead body to Muhammad Khan F.C. for taking the same to the mortuary but he had taken the same in the morning as it had gone late. He also stated that the spot inspection was done by him in the morning. The suggestion that he had planted the recoveries and had investigated the case in a partial manner, was denied by him. The statements of the other witnesses are more or less of a formal nature. The testimony of P.W.8 is directed against the acquitted accused and as such is of no consequence, for deciding the appeal filed by the appellant.

8. The appellant during his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case as a whole and pleaded innocence.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the judgment on merits. He straightaway took up the plea that the appellant could not have been awarded the extreme penalty of death, as it was prosecution's own case that the murder had taken place on account of the fact that Mst. Mastoor Bibi who was engaged to the appellant, had been married to the deceased after breaking the engagement with him. In this regard he placed reliance on Muhammad Ali v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 1682.

10. Notwithstanding the fact that learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the vires of the impugned judgment on merits, we have gone through the evidence and have perused the impugned judgment as well.

11. There was no enmity between the parties prior to this occurrence except that Mst. Mastoor Bibi who was earlier betrothed to Zahoor Ahmad appellant, had been married to the deceased son of the complainant. There is nothing on record to show that any incident or quarrel had taken place between the parties prior to this occurrence. The complainant, in fact, is related to the appellant. In that, his other son Khair Muhammad is married to the other daughter of Abdur Rehman father of Mst. Mastoor Bibi. A sister of the appellant is also married to Abdur Rehman. Of course, neither Mst. Mastoor Bibi nor the other daughter of, Abdur Rehman who is married to Khair Muhammad the other son of the complainant, are from his sister. They were born from the first wife of Abdur Rehman. Be that as it may, the fact remains that they are connected inter se through marriages. We, therefore, cannot assume for any reason that the complainant would have falsely involved the appellant in this case.

12. Ghulam Ahmad P.W.7 is neither related to the deceased nor was inimically disposed towards the appellant. He is an independent witness by all means. He has fully corroborated the statement made by the complainant. Nothing exists on record to discard his statement.

13. The evidence of recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri and blood‑stained clothes of the appellant, at his instance from his house, also does not smack any, falsehood. The same lends support to the ocular account. So does the evidence of motive, which in our assessment, stands proved. In the circumstances, there is no substance in the appeal. The conviction of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C., is therefore, maintained.

14. We have considered the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that it was not a case of extreme penalty of death in view of the fact that the deceased was married to a girl who had earlier been betrothed and was a finance of the appellant. We have considered the evidence on record in this behalf. It is complainant's own case that Mst. Mastoor Bibi was betrothed to the appellant end the betrothal had subsisted for a year, and that it was thereafter that she was married to his deceased son. No reason has been given for breaking that betrothal. In the circumstances, we do not find any difference in the facts and circumstances of the case cited by learned counsel for the appellant, in which the sentence of death was altered to imprisonment for life. The sentence of death awarded to the appellant is, therefore, altered to imprisonment for life. The sentence of fine and the direction to pay the compensation is maintained. He shall also be given the benefit of the provisions of section 382‑B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. S.A./Z‑75/L Sentence altered.