1987 PLP 28 (SCMR)

Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 28th October, 1986. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑The petitioner, herein, is charged for the murders of Inayat Bibi and her daughter Mst. Sajida by inflicting 24 incises on the former and 10 on the latter, while both of them were taking rest on a cot in their house situate in Street No. 2, Viryam Nagar, Jaranwala, at 3‑00 p. m. on 30th of July, 1976. The petitioner who is a relative of Faqir Muhammad, husband of Mst. Inayat Bibi, surreptitiously entered the house armed with a Chhuri, with a design to commit sexual intercourse with Inayat Bibi, but on her rebuff he pounced on her and caused not only injuries to her but also to her daughter who embraced her on seeing her being murdered. Her shrieks attracted not only her husband Faqir Muhammad, but also Fazal Din and Ghulam Murtaza, who were returning to their houses after offering Juma prayer, and as they entered the house they saw the petitioner inflicting injuries. He thereupon decamped from their waiving his Chhuri to frighten them. Inayat Bibi and her daughter Mst. Sajida were taken to the hospital where the child died, but Inayat Bibi survived till 9‑40 p.m. when she expired. However, her dying declaration was recorded at 4‑45 p.m. by the Investigating Officer in the hospital wherein she charged the petitioner for wanting to have a forcible sexual inter‑course and on her refusal, the petitioner causing injuries to her and her daughter. The motive for the occurrence was said to be that the petitioner had, a few days earlier, cut an indecent joke with her which she disliked and reported the matter to her husband who not only rebuked him, but also apprised his father. The petitioner was arrested on 8th of August, 1976 and he got recovered a blood‑stained Chhuri. The trial Court placed implicit reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased, Inayat Bibi, the ocular testimony of Faqir Muhammad, Fazal Din and Ghulam Murtaza, the motive and the recovery of the blood‑stained Chhuri as being the crime weapon while convicting him. On appeal and reference the High Court also accepted these pieces of evidence as sufficient to uphold his conviction and the infliction of death sentence. Sh. Shaukat Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner only attacked the dying declaration on the ground that her physical condition after the infliction of injuries could not be such as to enable her mentally to make a statement. In this connection, we examined the material on record and found that the Medical Officer on a query being made by the Investigating Officer certified that she was mentally fit to make al statement. The Doctor, who examined her when she reached the hospital also stated that she was in her senses. From the words and the style of the narration, we are of the view that it was natural and obviously made by the lady herself, who knew the facts, without the intervention of any third person. It was next urged that the statement made was that of her husband but we find no foundation for this suggestion from the record. Accordingly, we have no reason to disbelieve it. As for the other pieces of evidence, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not object to their credibility. The Courts below while accepting the evidence in totality have correctly appraised the evidence, and we see no legal error to interfere with this appraisal of evidence. In this view of the matter, the petition is without any substance and is hereby dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.