MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus STATE
This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.4/J of 2001 filed by Muhammad Aslam, appellant through jail who was convicted under section 302-B, P:P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000 in default three months' R.I. with the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur vide judgment, dated 2-6-2000.
2. Occurrence in this case had taken place at 11 a.m. on 24-7-1997 at a distance of one kilometer from Police Station City Depalpur District Okara while the matter was reported by Mst. Razia through Exh.P.L. at 5-30 p.m. on 28-7-1997 and the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.L./1 was recorded by Muhammad Akbar, Naib-Muharrir.
3. Briefly stated the. facts of the case are that Mst. Razia complainant was married with Mumtaz about four years prior to the occurrence and Mst. Muniran Bibi was married to her brother Muhammad Ashraf. It was a Watta Satta marriage. Muhammad Aslam, brother of the complainant wanted to have illicit relations with Mst. Muniran: Bibi wife. of Muhammad Ashraf, brother of the complainant. Muhammad Ashraf asked Muhammad Aslam many times to behave properly for which Muhammad Aslam had a grudge. After this occurrence, Muhammad Ashraf got a separate house on rent and started living there. On 24-7-1997, Muhammad Ashraf had gone for labour to Baseerpur. Mst. Muniran Bibi was present in the house of the complainant. At about 11 a.m. Muhammad Aslam came to house of the complainant and asked Muniran to go to home after holding her from her arm. Mst. Muniran Bibi refused and said that she had doubts in her mind about his evil intention as such she would not go to the house. Muhammad Aslam became furious and taking out a dagger from the Nepha of his Shalwar gave a blow which hit on the right side of her waist. In the meanwhile, Mumtaz husband of the complainant also came there. The complainant and Mumtaz tried to save Mst. Muniran upon which Muhammad Aslam gave a second dagger blow which landed on the chest of the complainant. Mst. Muniran fell down on the ground. On hue and cry, people attracted to the place of occurrence. Both Mst. Muniran and the complainant were taken to the hospital in an injured. condition but later on Mst. Muniran expired.
4. After registration of the formal F.I.R. Muhammad Sadiq, S.-I. (P.W.12) went to the place of occurrence, recorded statements of Mumtaz and Shabbir P.Ws., took into possession blood-stained earth vide memo. Exh.P.G. prepared the rough site plan Exh.P.M., recorded statement of Mst. Razia complainant on 1-8-1997, after receipt of report about the expiry of Mst. Muniran, he went to the hospital, prepared injury statement Exh. P.O. inquest report Exh. P. P. took into possession last worn clothes of the deceased, on 18-8-1997 arrested Muhammad Aslam, accused who on 21-8-1997 got recovered Khajar P.1 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.C. and after completion of the remaining codal formalities, Muhammad Aslam was challaned to face the trial.
5. At the trial, possession in order to prove its case produced 12 witnesses in all, thereafter, statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which the appellant took the plea of having committed the murder due to Ghariat. In his defence, the appellant also produced 2 D. Ws. After conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above.
6. Learned counsel for 'the appellant after having read the entire prosecution evidence submits that the injured P.W. namely Mst. Razia, complainant was not produced by the prosecution, so no conviction under sections 324/337, P.P.C. was awarded to the appellant, there are material contradictions in the 'statements of P.Ws.9 and 10, the appellant had acted in grave and sudden provocation because the character of Mst. Muniran and Mst. Razia was not upto the mark and were corrupt ladies having illicit relations with different persons and that the story put forward by the appellant is more plausible and convincing to the version set by the prosecution. In nutshell, learned counsel submits that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the appellant and he is entitled to acquittal.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that both the eye witnesses are independent, they have fully implicated the appellant, it was a broad daylight murder so there was no question of mistaken identity.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence brought on record. There are two witnesses in this case, namely, P.W.9 and P.W.10. Mumtaz (P.W.10) was married to real sister of the appellant namely Razia Bibi. Both the eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case. They had got no enmity whatsoever against the appellant. Occurrence had taken place at 11 a.m. on 24-7-1997, so there was no question of mistaken identity. The appellant is single accused. The appellant has also admitted his guilt for causing injuries on the persons of the deceased and the complainant, who was her real sister but in a different way. The golden principle in a case where two versions are introduced is to put both the versions in juxtaposition and then to see as to which version is more plausible and convincing. Applying the same principle in this case, to my mind, the story of the prosecution seems to be more plausible and convincing. The appellant has also failed to discharge the onus to prove the factum of Ghairat as required by Article 121 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order Ordinance, 1984. Mst. Razia, the complainant did not appear before the learned Trial Court because the appellant was her real brother and intentionally disappeared to give benefit to the appellant.
The irresistible conclusion of the above discussion is that the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellant. The defence has not been able to create any dent in the story of the prosecution, with the p result that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Trial Court against the appellant is maintained. Appeal filed .by the appellant is dismissed.
N.H.Q./M-569/L Appeal dismissed.