1988 P Cr (PLP)

Allah Rakha son of Ahmad Bakhsh caste Kumhar aged 22 years resident of Old Chishtian, district Bahawalnagar, has been tried and convicted under section 302, PPC for the murder of his sister Mst. Naziran by Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bahawalnagar, who vide judgment dated 26-6-1983, sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1,000 in default whereof suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. The convict has filed the instant appeal challenging both his conviction and sentence.

2. The incident took place in Old Chishtian at Isha'wela on 6-11-1980. It was reported by Muhammad Nawaz (PW5), husband of the deceased, at Police Station Chishtian at a distance of 1 miles from the place of occurrence, vide FIR Ex-PF recorded by ASI Muhammad Musa (PW 11) at 8.15 p.m., the same night.

3. According to the FIR Mst. Naziran (deceased) was initially married to one Muhammad Akram. About 2-3/4 years before the occurrence she obtained divorce from Muhammad Akram and re-married. Muhammad Nawaz (complainant). A daughter named Najma aged 11 years had born out of the wedlock. Allah Rakha (appellant), brother of Mst. Naziran (deceased), did not like her marriage with Muhammad Nawaz. He tried his best to persuade her to obtain divorce from Muhammad Nawaz but she refused to act according to his wishes whereupon the appellant felt annoyed. On the fateful day at Isha'wela Mst. Naziran went out of the house with Mst. Pappo aged 7/8 years (PW4), niece of the complainant, to answer the call of nature. After sometime the complainant heard cries of Mst. Naziran. The complainant (PW5) Haji Muhammad Hanif (PW6) and Bashir Ahmad (PW7) ran towards that place and saw the appellant Allah Rakha injuring Mst. Naziran with a knife. The witnesses entreated him not to kill her but he continued giving blows to her. Due to fear the witnesses did not catch hold of the appellant who escaped brandishing the knife and having behind his white Chadar (P.2), Mufflar (P.3) and one brown shoe (P.4) at the spot. In the meantime Pir Muhammad Aslam P.W. (not produced), Allah Yar (PW 2) and other people of the locality also. reached there. Mst. Naziran, the injured lady, told all of them that she was injured by her brother Allah Rakha (appellant) as he grudged her marriage with Muhammad Nawaz (complainant). Mst. Naziran was then put on a cot and while being taken to Civil Hospital Chishtian breathed her last in the way.

4. ASI Muhammad Musa (PW11) investigated the case. He visited the spot, collected blood-stained earth from there vide memo Ex.PA, picked up Chaddar P.2, Mufflar P.3, a brown shoe P.4 belonging to the appellant and secured them vide memo Ex.PC and preparing the injuries statement Ex.PJ and inquest report Ex.PH of the deceased got the dead body post-mortemed. He arrested the appellant on 7-11-1980 and at his pointation recovered blood-stained knife P.1 from his house which was secured and sealed vide memo Ex.PB. After completion of usual investigation the appellant was challaned to Court.

5. Dr. Wahid Bakhsh Bhatti (PW9) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Naziran on 7-11-1980 at 3.30 p.m., and observed 14 incised wounds on her person spread all over the body, of which 9 injuries were in the chest region and the remaining on shoulders and thighs. On dissection of body her both the lungs were found pierced. In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were ante-mortem caused with sharp-edged weapon and death had occurred due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the injuries on vital parts. According to the doctor, the death had occurred within one hour and time which elapsed between death and post-mortem examination was within 24 hours.

6. At the trial prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all and mainly relied on the evidence of motive as stated by Muhammad Nawaz, complainant (PW5), ocular evidence furnished by Allah Yar (PW2), Muhammad Sharif (PW 3), Mst. Pappo (PW 4),. Muhammad Nawaz, complainant (PW 5) Haji Muhammad Hanif (PW 6) and Bashir Ahmad (PW 7) and the dying declaration of Mst. Naziran (deceased), as deposed to by Allah Yar (PW 2), Haji Muhammad Hanif (PW 6) and Bashir Ahmad (PW 7).

7. At the conclusion of prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C wherein he denied the allegations. He, however, admitted that Mst. Naziran had married Muhammad Nawaz, complainant, but denied that he was against this marriage, He also disowned recovery of blood-stained knife, and produced no witness in defence.

8. The learned trial Court believing the prosecution version held the appellant guilty under section 302, PPC but refrained from inflicting the extreme penalty on the ground that he was a young man who committed the murder of his sister in order to vindicate the disgrace brought on the family by the deceased by having married a person against the wishes of the family.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State and also perused the record.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant stated that it was a night occurrence and, therefore, it was not possible for the witnesses to have seen and identified the appellant as author of the murder. The contention has no force. There are as many as 14 injuries on the person of Mst. Naziran, deceased, which show that the assailant took quite sometime in causing so many injuries. The deceased, according to the doctor, died after an hour of infliction of injuries which means that she was capable of raising alarm during the occurrence and, therefore, the claim of the eye-witnesses that they had reached there hearing her alarm and seen the occurrence, seems to be quite probable. The witnesses have not been proved to be having a motive to falsely implicate the appellant. Their testimony does not suffer from any infirmity so as to render it unworthy of credit. I am, therefore, satisfied that the learned trial Court has rightly believed the evidence adduced by the prosecution which successfully brought home the charge of murder to the appellant. Consequently, I uphold the conviction. The lesser penalty in the case awarded by the trial Court also seems to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. There is thus no force in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. S.A./A-171/L Conviction upheld.