1994 P Cr (PLP)

5. The prosecution examined 10 P.Ws. in all to substantiate its case and the learned trial Court had found the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the iecord. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the case against the appellant was false. There was no motive for him to commit murder of the deceased. The eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased, the ocular account is not in consonance with the medical evidence, the recovery of blood-stained Toka P.1 has been disbelieved by the trial Court and the appellant has been substituted by the real culprit P.W.1 complainant Allah Wasaya as stated by the defence witnesses.

7. P.W.1 Allah Wasaya in his statement Exh.PA. on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was recorded, has stated about the motive, i.e. the appellant 5/7 days earlier to the present occurrence had tried to develop illicit relations with deceased Mst. Nasim wife of the complainant and the deceased had reprimanded the appellant. The deceased also stated about the same to P.W.1, on which the complainant pulled up the appellant and due to that grievance the appellant murdered the deceased. P.W.1 at trial narrated the motive as stated by him in the F.I.R. Exh.PA./1. P.W.2 Mst. Amiran stated that the appellant wanted to create illicit intimacy with the deceased, who disclosed it to her husband (P.W.1) and P.W.1 reproached the deceased and due to that grudge the appellant had murdered Mst. Nasim. P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz during cross-examination has stated that the deceased did not disclose to him that the appellant tried to create illicit connection with her, but P.W.1 had told him about the said fact 5/7 days earlier to the present occurrence. The motive behind the occurrence has been proved on record by the statement of P.Ws.l, 2 and 3.

8. The ocular account has been furnished on record by the statement of P.W.1 Allah Wasaya complainant, who had made statement Exh.PA.. on the basis of which formal F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 was recorded, wherein he had narrated that on the day of occurrence at about 11-00 a.m. he alongwith P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz was cutting grass when they heard hue and cry of Mst. Nasim deceased, on which P.W.1 Allah Wasaya and P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz rushed towards their Dera, reached there and witnessed that the appellant aamed with a Toka was chasing the deceased in the courtyard of the Dera within the boundary walls. Mst. Amiran (P.W.2) and Mst. Sukhu P.W.2 (given up) were running after the appellant to apprehend him in order to save the deceased. The deceased reached on the back of the Dera and within the sight of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 the appellant inflicted 5/7 Toka blows continuously on the neck, head, arms etc., and on receipt of the same the deceased was seriously injured, fell on the ground and succumbed to her injuries. P.W.2 Mst. Amiran was present in the Dera alongwith her sister-in-law Mst. Nasim deceased and P.W. Mst. Sukhu Mai (given up) on a cot in front of her residential room, when appellant armed with a Toka reached there and raised Lalkara at Mst. Nasim deceased that she be ready for death. The deceased ran and the appellant chased her. P.W.2 Mst. Amiran Mai alongwith Mst. Sukhu P.W. (given up) followed the appellant also raised alarm, on which P.W3 Muhammad Nawaz, her husband and P.W.1 Allah Wasaya complainant reached. The appellant inflicted 5/7 Toka blows on the person of the deceased, who fell down on receiving the injuries and died at the spot. P.W.3 Muhammad Nawaz had corroborated the statements of P.W.1 Allah Wasaya and P.W.2 Mst. Amiran Mai and had also stated that within his sight and that of P.Ws.l and 2 and Mst. Sukhu P.W. (given up) the appellant gave 5/7 Toka blows to Mst. Nasim Mai, deceased, who felt down after receiving the injuries and died at the spot. P.Ws.l, 2 and 3 have corroborated each other and made consistent statements. No doubt P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased, P.W.2 is the sister -in-law of the deceased, whereas P.W.3 is husband of P.W.2 and sister's husband of P.W.1 and their statements cannot be thrown away or brushed aside on account of their mere relationship with the deceased. P.W.2 was present in the house when the occurrence took place and P.Ws.l and 2 were cutting grass adjacent to the Ihata and after hearing hue and cry of the deceased reached the spot and witnessed the appellant inflicting Toka blows on the deceased. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are the natural witnesses and residents of the Ihata, where the occurrence took place. They made their statements in a straightforward manner and the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any material contradiction or dishonest improvements in their statements. Implicit reliance can be placed on their testimony.

9. The medical account on record has been furnished by the statement of P.W.10 Dr. Muhammad Sher-uz-Zaman Bhatti, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mst. Nasim deceased on 24-10-1990 at 5-00 p.m. and found the following injuries on her person:-- (1) An incised wound 12 c.m. x 6 c.m. x bone deep extending from outer side of the left side of the mouth to left side of neck upto mid of the back of the neck. Left mendible was also cut. All blood vessels and left common carotidartid were cut. (2) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep on the front of the right side of the head. Bone was also cut. (3) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep on the right side of the cheek. (4) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 3 c.m. on the right side of the palm. (5) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep on the front of ulner side of mid of right fore-arm. (6) An incised wound on the front of the lower end of right middle finger. The proximal phalanx was also cut. (7) An incised wound 2 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep on the front of the right ring finger. Bone was also cut. (8) An incised wound 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep at the back of mid of left fore-arm. (9) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. bone deep on top of right shoulder joint. The right scapula was also cut. and had opined that all the injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapon and were ante-mortem in nature. Injury No.l was fatal to life and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Injuries Nos.2, 6, 7 and 9 were grievous in nature while the rest were simple. So the cause of death was excessive haemorrhage and shock. Probable time that elapsed between injuries and death was within ten minutes. The time between death and post-mortem was four to six hours. P.W.10 Dr. Muhammad Sher-uz-Zaman Bhatti during cross-examination stated that while infecting injury No.l the assailant, in his opinion, might be in front of the victim. Rest of the injuries also appeared to have been inflicted from the front and not from the back. According to him, all the injuries were sustained by the victim at the same time. The appellant was chasing the deceased and it is human psychology that if someone is chased with the weapon, the person running ahead shall turn back to see the distance between herself and the appellant. The appellant had inflicted injuries on the different parts of the body of the deceased. The deceased had tried to save herself which is evident from the receipt of injuries on the right side of the palm, front of ulner side of mid of right fore-arm, on the front of the lower end of right middle finger, on the front of right ring finger, at the back of mid of left fore-arm and on the top of right shoulder joint (injuries Nos.4 to 9). P.Ws.l, 2 and 3 unanimously stated that the appellant had caused 5/7 Toka blows on the deceased. The medical aspect of the case furnished on record by the statement of P.W.10 is in consonance with the ocular account stated by P.Ws.l, 2 and 3.

10. D.W.1 Allah Bakhsh has stated that he alongwith D.W.2 Muhammad Abdullah was attracted towards the house of the complainant due to cries of the deceased and witnessed the complainant having Toka in his hand, who had committed the murder of his wife. They went to the village in order to cast their votes and had narrated the occurrence to Khuda Bakhsh, Chairman, Usher and Zakat Committee, who himself went to the police station. During cross-examination he stated that he alongwith D.W.2 Muhammad Abdullah witnessed the Toka in the hand of P.W.1 Allah Wasaya, complainant but they did not try to apprehend him or take him to the police station and he had not moved any application to the higher Police Officers when the appellant was arrested. However, he went to the 1.0. He had not moved the Court even. The appellant was known to him for the last 32/33 years and they had agricultural land in the same village. D.W.2 Muhammad Abdullah stated that he alongwith D.W.1 Allah Bakhsh after hearing the cries of weeping were attracted to the house of P.W.1 Allah Wasaya complainant and witnessed that P.W.1 had already murdered his wife. They asked him about the occurrence, who asked them to go away because it was his personal affair. After three days he alongwith Khuda Bakhsh, Chairman, Usher and Zakat Committee visited the police station and narrated the occurrence to P.W.7 Sh. Madad Hussain, S.H.O. During cross-examination he stated that after seeing the occurrence he alongwith D.W.1 straightaway went to the polling station. They did not try to apprehend the accused or to lodge report against the complainant Allah Wasaya (P.W.1) after witnessing the occurrence. He also stated that it was correct that the appellant was his first cousin and he had engaged his daughter with the son of the appellant. He further stated that it was correct that the appellant remained in jail with the allegation that he had abducted a lady and D.W.2 was his co-accused in the said case. D.Ws.l and 2 refuted the suggestion that they had falsely deposed. The defence version is not substantiated from the evidence and the circumstances appearing in the case. Only bald suggestions were given to the P.Ws. about the substitution of the appellant with the real culprit. The D.Ws. instead of reporting the matter to the police went A to cast their votes. Hence the statements made by D.W.1 and D.W.2 are not confidence inspiring.

11. P.Ws.l, 2 and 3 have specifically stated that the appellant had caused Toka blows to the deceased, in consequence whereof she succumbed to her injuries. It was a broad day murder. There was no previous enmity between the parties. P.Ws.l, 2 and 3 had no animus against the appellant and no motive whatsoever to falsely involve him in the present case. The substitution is a rare phenomenon.

12. The F.I.R. Exh.PA./1 recorded on the basis of Exh.PA.., the statement of P.W.1 complainant contains the name of the accused, the weapon carried by him, the witnesses, the motive and the manner in which the occurrence took place, all are given therein. The motive behind the occurrence stands proved, the ocular testimony is in consonance with the medical evidence stated by P.W.10 and excepting minor discrepancies here and there, the learned defence counsel was unable to point out any material discrepancy and dishonest improvements in the statements of the P.Ws.

13. We are of the considered view that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing and proving its case beyond any doubt against the appellant and no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment. The appeal filed by the appellant fails and the murder reference is answered in affirmative. The death sentence is confirmed. N.H.Q./M-1272/L Appeal dismissed.