RIASAT ALI vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his wife, Fauzia, under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the appellant strangled the deceased in their home, with the complainant (the deceased's mother) witnessing the aftermath. The appellant contended that the FIR was delayed, the witnesses were unnatural, and the evidence was insufficient. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on the complainant's testimony and the burden on the husband to explain an unnatural death occurring within his home. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully proven its case. It affirmed that the conviction could be sustained based on the credible testimony of a sole witness, corroborated by medical evidence and the recovery of the weapon of offense. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide a plausible explanation for the unnatural death of his wife in his own house.
- Can a criminal conviction be maintained on the basis of the statement of a sole witness?
- Does the burden of proof shift to a husband to explain an unnatural death occurring within his own home?
- Is the testimony of a mother-in-law against her son-in-law inherently unreliable in a murder case?
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 544-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 28-4- 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hafizabad, whereby after having tried the appellant, he was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced him to imprisonment for life as Tazir with a further direction to pay a compensation of Rs,1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. In default whereof to further undergo S.I. For six months.
Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was also extended to the appellant.
2. Brief facts of the case, as given by the complainant Mst. Fatima Bibi (P.W.2) in the F.I.R. Are that her daughter Fauzia was married to appellant two years' ago relations became strained, she came back to the house of the complainant, on appellant came to her house and took her with him uttering bitter words, she along with Azhar Iqbal and Ashiq P. Ws. Went to the appellant's house, they stayed in appellant's house for the said night, appellant and deceased Fauzia went to sleep in a separate room, at about Sehriwela they heard shrieks, they got up and knocked the door of the appellant, appellant opened the door, pushed them and slipped away, they entered the room and found the dead body of Fouzia on the cot who was murdered by the appellant by strangulation.
The motive was that the appellant used to forbid the deceased from meeting the complainant.
3. After having completed legal formalities, challan was submitted against the accused before the learned Court of competent jurisdiction, accused denied the charge and claimed trial, where, the prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, produced eight prosecution witnesses during the trial.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of this appeal submits that the F.I.R. Was lodged with the considerable delay with deliberations and consultation as the occurrence had taken place at Sehriwela while it was registered at 11-20 a.m.; that the presence of the eye-witnesses in the house of the appellant is most unnatural; that the story given in the F.I.R. By the complainant is a concocted one, that there is no eye-witness in this case; that it is repellent to common sense that the appellant would run away from the spot in the presence of the eye-witnesses, that as per P.W.5 the injury could not have been caused by strangulation; that there was a Dopatta with the dead body of the deceased but was not taken into possession by the police, that the eyewitness cannot be termed as natural witnesses of the case; that the conviction and sentence of the appellant cannot be maintained on the basis of such a shaky evidence; that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and that the appellant is entitled to acquittal by this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that it is a case of promptly lodged F.I.R.; that the occurrence was witnessed by the natural witnesses; that the ocular account is corroborated by the medical evidence; that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt end that this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, have gone through the record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also given anxious consideration to the submissions made at the bar by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Appellant is the husband of the deceased Fauzia. The occurrence in this case had taken place in the house of the appellant but dead body of the deceased was shifted to the house of brother-in- law of the deceased. It was the duty of the appellant to explain how his wife met such an unnatural death in his house. His stand was only that it was a blind murder which stand is not corroborated by an iota of evidence.
'Complainant is the real mother of the deceased but she has no axe to grind why she will implicate the appellant in this case. She is mother-in-law of the appellant. Her presence in appellant's house is quite natural and cannot be doubted. It is settled proposition of law that conviction can be maintained even on the basis of statement of a sole witness if the same inspires confidence, of intrinsic value and of unimpeachable character. Statement of the complainant is sufficient to maintain conviction of the appellant. There is a recovery of Chaddar from the appellant with which he strangulated the deceased which is a corroborative piece of evidence.
' Apart from above, the ocular account in this case is corroborated by the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Shagufta (P. W . 5).
8. After having sifted grain from the chaff and after having applied independent judicial mind, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond a shadow of doubt to sustain conviction against the appellant. The learned trial Court has delivered a well-reasoned judgment to convict the appellant which does not call for interference by this Court in the appellate jurisdiction. The learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view qua the quantum of sentence. Resultantly, this appeal has no merit which is accordingly dismissed after having maintained the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment, in toto.