1969 PLP 361 (SCMR)

The couple belonged to the District of Multan but sometime in February 1954, had come over to Karachi, where they lived with one Hidayat Shah and his wife who also belonged to Multan. In Karachi Bakhu who was a ghee merchant in Multan continued his business while Mst. Zohra, who was ailing, remained under the treatment of a physician. After a few weeks when Mst. Zohra got over her illness she and her husband decided to return to Multan. Accordingly they left Karachi by train but on the way decided to drop at Hyderabad where Bakhu met Gulab whom he knew before Gulab suggested to Bakhu that .he should purchase some ghee from Larkana and the surrounding villages where it could be obtained at cheaper rates. Bakhu agreed and consequently he and his wife and the latter s daughter who was accompanying them left for Larkana with Gulab and his two friends Chand Badshah and Saleh appellant. Having reached Larkana the party went to the house of appellant Yakub who was then posted there as Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police. Yakub entertained them for a few minutes after which Gulab with his two companions took the deceased, his wife and the girl to a village called Agham where, they all stayed at the house of Muhammad appellant and Murad who are closely related to Yakub. Accord ing to the prosecution while at Agham Gulab, Saleh, Chand Badshah, Muhammad and Murad conspired together to kill Bakhu and to sell Mst. Zohra for a substantial sum of money. Accordingly one day Bakhu was taken out by Gulab, Chand Badshah and Saleh on the pretext that they would purchase cheap ghee in the villages and was done to death somewhere near Ratodero. The dead body of the unfortunate man was buried on a canal bank but it was discovered within a few days and since nobody claimed it, it was re‑buried by the Municipal Authorities. When the murderers returned to Agham Mst. Zohra enquired from them why her husband had not come with them. She was told that he had met a friend from Multan and would return on the fullowii1g day. But Bakhu did not return even on the next day and when Mst. Zohra taxed Gulab with enquiries he told her that Bakhu had gone away after having sold her to Chand Badshah for Rs. 1,

400. A few days later Mst. Zohra was forced to go through a marriage ceremony with one Budho and to put her thumb‑impression on a deed of marriage. The deed is dated the l0th March 1954, is attested by Muhammad appellant and states that Mst. Zohra received a sum of Rs. 2,700 from Budho as consideration for herself and her daughter. The description of the woman given therein is Mst. Ghulam Sughra daughter of Allah Wasayo, resident of Bahawalpur, which is all wrong. Mst. Zohra was taken by her new husband to his village where after an unsuccessful attempt to escape. She told her tale to one Wahid Bakhsh who passed on the information to a notable of the village, who in turn mentioned the incident to Khan Bahadur Ahmad Khan Bhutto. The Khan Bahadur came to the village and took Mst. Zohra in his car to Larkana where he produced her before the Assistant Superintendent of Police. It is unnecessary to refer to the course that the investigation took except to state that Yakub appellant was alleged from the very beginning to have been associated with the incident. During investigation Chand Badshah made a confession which was recorded by a Magistrate and was later tendered pardon which he accepted. Saleh appellant also promised to make a confession but when produced before the Magistrate he made a statement merely admitting that he was present when Bakhu was murdered by Gulab and Chand Badshah and that he himself took no part in the murder. Gulab absconded and has not yet been arrested. At the trial the main evidence against the appellants was that of the approver Chand Badshah and Mst. Zohra. The learned Sessions Judge who heard the evidence held that the evidence of the approver was sufficiently corroborated against each of the accused persons except Sadhugham. The same view of the evidence was taken by the High Court in appeal so far as the three appellants conviction are concerned, and the short question to be considered is whether the High Court was right in that opinion. As regards Saleh there is hardly anything that can be said in support of the appeal. This man is fully implicated by the approver in the conspiracy and in his own statement recorded by a Magistrate under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code admitted that the murder was committed in his presence. Apart from his own statement there is the evidence of Mst. Zohra that this appellant accompanied her husband when he was taken away on the pretext of purchasing ghee and that the appellant and his two companions Gulab and Chand Badshah returned to the village without her husband. And in his subsequent conduct there is nothing to show that he disapproved of or disclosed the crime that had been committed, according to him, in front of his very eyes though without his consent. We have no doubt that approver's evidence against him is true and is fully corro borated. Appellant Muhammad is alleged by the approver to be one of the conspirators who decided on killing Bakhu and selling Mst. Zohra, and it has been proved by other evidence that it was this appellant who was responsible for the insertion of untrue facts in the marriage deed and who received Rs, 3,000 as consideration of the marriage. In fact the entire marriage transaction was brought about by this appellant because throughout the proceed ings he acted on behalf of Mst. Zohra and procured the Mulla who read the Nikah. His conduct subsequent to the murder, for which no innocent explanation is or can be given, unmistakably tends to confirm the evidence of the approver that this appellant was a party to the conspiracy to murder Bakhu and to sell Mst. Zohra and that after the murder be had been informed that the main object of the conspiracy had been accomplished. He knew that Mst. Zohra had a husband and therefore when he disposed of her in marriage he must have been aware that her husband was no more alive, and this fits in with the approvers statement that Muhammad was a party to the conspiracy to kill and knew that Bakho had been killed in pursuance of that conspiracy. This, in our opinion, was a sufficient ground for his conviction of abet ment of murder which, the murder having actually been commit ted, was punishable under section

302. Appellant Yakub is being implicated by Mst. Zohra from the very beginning. Gulab brought the deceased and his wife to the house of this appellant where he entertained both of them and then had both of them sent to his village Agham. When Bakhu was murdered, he and his wife had been staying in the house of this appellant's close relations. The evidence, considered as a whole and discarding the inadmissible part of it, clearly gives the impression that the unfortunate man could not have been done to death unless the murderers had the actual or expected support of this appellant. In any case on the charge of abduction there is sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. We are unable to discover any sufficient reason for interfering with the convictions and sentences and therefore dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.