MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus STATE
KH. MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J. ‑‑ Through this judgment we would like to dispose of Murder Reference No.22 of 1997 and Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1997 filed by Muhammad Ismail son of Manak Ali, aged about 26 years, an Army Personal, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar on 20‑11‑1997 for the murder of his step mother namely Mst. Hanifan Bibi, to undergo death sentence under section 302, P.P.C.. No compensation was awarded to the appellant under section 544/A, Cr.P.C. as required under the law.
2. The occurrence in this case took place on 22‑9‑1996 at 11‑00 a.m. in the house of Manak Ali, father of the appellant, which is situated within the area of Police Station, Mandi Sadiq Ganj, Bahawalnagar. The distance between the place of occurrence and that of Police Station, Mandi Sadiq Ganj, was 9 k.ms. The matter was reported to the police at 3‑30 p.m. by Manak Ali, real father of the appellant examined as P.W.4 by the learned Trail Court. F.I.R., Exh.P.C. was recorded by Malik Shah Jahan S.‑I. P.W.12.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case as narrated by Manak Ali in the F.I.R., Exh.P.C. are that he lived in Mauza Jammun, Tehsil Minchinabad, District Bahawalnagar and is a Zamindar by profession he had two wives, first was Mst. Qureshan Bibi and the other was Mst. Hanifan Bibi. Both of them used to quarrel with each other on small and petty matters. Muhammad Ismail, appellant was from the wedlock of Mst. Qureshan Bibi and was employed in Pak Army. On the day of occurrence, he had come from his duty on holiday. According to the complainant his real mother Mst. Qureshan Bibi told Muhammad Ismail, that Mst. Hanifan Bibi off and on quarrelled with her and teased her on which, Muhammad Ismail replied that he will not spare her. Complainant advised him to behave properly, on which Muhammad Ismail kept silent.
4. On the day of occurrence, at about 11‑00 a.m, complainant summoned Zahoor Ahmad and Ghulam Rasool in order to advise Muhammad Ismail, accused (appellant) to behave properly. At that time, Mst. Naseem Bibi aged 14/15 years daughter of complainant was also present in the house and all were sitting in the bed room of the house. Mst. Hanifan Bibi wife of the complainant was present in the courtyard of the house. Muhammad Ismail, accused (appellant) stood up and went out side the room. In the meanwhile, all the P.Ws. heard the voice of Mst. Hanifan requesting to save her. On which all the P.Ws. came out from the bed room and saw that Muhammad Isamil accused (appellant) caused injuries on the person of Mst. Hanifan Bibi on her waist and abdomen and also raised "Lalkara", that if anybody tried to apprehend him, he will also be dealt with in the same manner. Thereafter, Muhammad Ismail accused (appellant) while brandishing the dagger ran away. Mst. Hanifan Bibi died at the spot, while leaving Ghulam Rasool and Zahoor Ahmad with the dead body, complainant went to police station for the registration of F.I.R.
5. The Investigating Officer after registering the F.I.R. came to the spot prepared injury statement Exh.P.H. and inquest report Exh.P.I. of the dead body of Mst. Hanifan Bibi. He recorded the statement of P.Ws. under section 161, Cr.P.C. He also secured blood stained earth from underneath the dead body of Mst. Hanifan Bibi and sealed the same into a parcel vide memo Exh.P.E. He also took into possession blood stained cot P.5 from the spot vide memo Exh.P.F. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination.
6. On 27‑9‑1996, the abovesaid Inspector/S.‑I. arrested Muhammad Ismail appellant at the bridge of 61000 of Bairwah Canal. On 30‑9‑1996, appellant led to the recovery of dagger P.4 from his residential Kotha from the iron box lying in the said room, which was taken into possession vide memo Exh.P.D. According to the report of Chemical Examiner Exh.P.L. and that of Serologist Exh.P.M. blood‑stained earth and knife (dagger) got recovered by the appellant were found with human blood.
7. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced 12 witnesses in all. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C, wherein he had stated that he had seen his step‑mother with Ghulam Rasool P.W. (given up as unnecessary) in an objectionable condition, and he lost his self- control, picked up a Chhuri, committed murder of Mst. Hanifan Bibi under grave and sudden provocation while Ghulam Rasool ran away from the spot.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has read before us, the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C, statement of three eye witnesses produced by the prosecution namely Manak Ali P.W.4, real father of the appellant and complainant. Mst. Naseem Akhtar step sister of the appellant as P.W.5 and Zahoor Ahmad P. W .7 Learned counsel for the appellant after reading the same makes the following submissions. He submits that Mst. Hanifan Bibi was married to appellant's father 15/16 years prior to the occurrence and no altercation took place between the appellant and Mst. Hanifan Bibi deceased. He also submits that appellant is son of a deprived women because father of the appellant had entered into a second marriage with Mst. Hanifan Bibi. He further submits that the appellant had acted under her influence because his mother must have asked him to teach a lesson to the deceased, who used to quarrel with her off and on. He further submits that this is a mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant. He has also relied upon 1997 PCr.LJ 229 and 1999 SCMR 406 and prays for lesser sentence.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the judgment of learned Trial Court and submits that the death sentence awarded to the appellant be maintained.
10 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence recorded by the learned Trial Court. In the instant case, occurrence had taken place at 11‑00 a.m. in the house of the complainant, who is real father of the l appellant and who has deposed against the appellant on oath before the learned Trial Court. There is no reason to disbelieve him. He is the natural and star‑witness of the prosecution. The other eye‑witness namely Mst. Naseem Akhtar is also a natural witness because she was step sister of the appellant and used to reside in the same house. Zahoor Ahmad P.W.7 is an independent witness, who was called by the complainant himself at his house so that they all may advise the appellant to behave properly with Mst. Hanifan Bibi deceased. Blood‑stained earth and blood‑stained cot were also taken into possession from the said house. Then there is a report of Chemical Examiner and that of Serologist about the weapon got recovered by the appellant, which is also positive in nature. Ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence and recovery of blood stained weapon of offence. Appellant's defence is totally ruled out of the consideration because the defence which he had taken is most unnatural and improper. Nobody would commit sexual intercourse at 11‑00 a.m. in the house where Mst. Hanifan Bibi alongwith her husband and her children were also residing there. On the one hand appellant had committed the murder of the deceased and on the other hand, he had taken such type of absurd defence which is totally ruled out of consideration. Act of Muhammad Ismail appellant was of such a desperate and callous one that even his real father did not hesitate to state against the appellant and had fully supported the prosecution case. The Court has to see the quality of evidence. In the instant case there is quality of evidence and also the quantity of evidence because three eye witnesses have supported the prosecution case. In our view, ocular account is corroborated by medical evidence. There are two sharp‑edged weapon injuries on the vital part of the body of the deceased Mst. Hanifan Bibi caused by the appellant and according to the doctor injury No. l was sufficient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature. There is no mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant. Authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the instant case. Those judgments proceed on different facts and have no relevancy with the facts of the instant case.
11. In this view of the matter, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is maintained. Death sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned trial Court is confirmed. However, learned counsel for the appellant is also given notice to show cause why the sentence of compensation should also not be awarded to the appellant as required under section 544‑A, Cr.P.C. who has accepted the same, so the appellant is also directed to pay Rs.50,000 (fifty thousand) to the legal heirs of the deceased, in default thereof to undergo six months' S.‑I. Appeal filed by the appellant fails, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is upheld. Murder Reference is replied in affirmative. With the abovesaid modification and alteration in his sentence of compensation the criminal appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Death sentence awarded to the appellant is confirmed.
H.B.T./M‑1086/L Appeal dismissed.