MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus STATE

GULBAZ KHAN, J .--Muhammad Mansha was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to death .and a fine of Rupees five thousand or in default in payment of fine to undergo R.I. for three years. He was also directed to pay Rupees five thousand as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased and in default in payment of compensation to undergo R.I. for six months. The judgment was delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat on 1-12-1980. The criminal appeal filed by Muhammad Mansha and the murder reference are being disposed of together.

2. Muhammad Mansha appellant was married to the daughter of Mst. Raj Begum deceased named Mst. Zahida Nasreen (P.W.11) about two years prior to the present occurrence. Mst. Zahida Nasreen lived in the house of her husband in village Kot Bhattian for eight/nine days. She fell out with her husband and returned to the house of her parents in village Barsai Khurd. The appellant made several attempts to take his wife to his house but remained unsuccessful. On 9-6-1979, at Degrawela, he again visited the house of his in-laws. His father-in-law Barkat All (P.W.8) was away to village Agowal where he had gone to enquire after the health of his relative Nawab Khan. Mst. Raj Begum was present in the house with her sons Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.12). Muhammad Fazil (not produced) and daughters Mst. Zahida Nasreen (P.W.11) and Mst. Shahida Parveen (not produced). Rehmat Khan enmplainant (P.W.10) an uncle of Zahida Nasreen P.W. who had a house in the same Haveli, joined the family of Mst Raj Begum at about 10.00 p.m. The appellant, the deceased and others continued talking till after mid-night. A lantern was lit near their cots. At about 2.00 a.m. the appellant addressed his mother-in-law Mst. Raj Begum in harsh tone enquiring if she was willing to send her daughter with him or not, whereupon the deceased flatly refused. The appellant took out knife from his Dub and inflicted two blows with it to the deceased on her neck. The deceased withered and fell down from the cot. The occurrence was witnessed by Rehmat Khan complainant (P.W.l0), Mst. Zahida Nasreen (P.W.11), Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.12), Muhammad Fazil and Shahida Parveen (both not produced). They tried to apprehend the appellant, who threatened them with death. The appellant fled away from the spot. The deceased expired immediately.

3. Rehmat Khan reached Police Station Jalaipur Jattan, on 10-6-1979, at 6-15 a.m. after covering a distance of eight miles and lodged the F.I.R. Exh. P.A. which was recorded by Ali Asghar S.H.O. After recording the F.I.R. the S.H.O. reached the courtyard of Barkat Ali and prepared injury statement and inquest report and despatched the dead body for post-mortem examination. He took into possession the blood-stained earth from the spot and sealed it into a parcel. He took into possession blood-stained cot, blood-stained Dhoti and blood-stained pillow. He took into possession blood-stained clothes of the deceased which were produced by Muhammad Younis F.C. after post-mortem examination. He arrested Muhammad Mansha appellant from near G.T.S. Bus-Stand, Gujrat, on 10-6-1979 and recovered one currency note of the denomination of Rupee five and four currency notes of the denomination of Rupees one each during personal search of the appellant. He interrogated the appellant on 12-6-1979, who produced blood-stained knife P.1 from underneath a culvert. It was sealed into a parcel vide memo. Exh. P.E. The memo was attested by Muhammad Khan (P.W.7) and Mian Khan (not produced).

4. Dr. Rashid Ahmad conducted post-mortem examination o the dead body of Mst. Raj Begum, on 10-6-1979, at 5-30 p.m. He found the following injuries on her person:-

(1) An incised wound 2" x 1" x muscle deep on the front side of the neck.

(2) An incised wound 2 x 1 x going deep on front of neck. The trachia was cut muscles (stern07mastoid) were also cut partially. The big vessels on the right side of the neck were cut.

The death occurred on account of shock, haemorrhage and asphysxia due to injury No.2. The time between injuries and death was immediate while between death and post-mortem about 12-18 hours.

5. Rehmat Khan (P.W.10), Mst. Zahida Nasreen (P.W.11) and Muhammad Nawaz (P.W.12), who witnessed the occurrence, stated at the trial that in their presence after mid-night, Muhammad h1ansha appellant inflicted two knife blows to Mst. Raj Begum deceased in her courtyard when the latter declined to send her daughter Mst. Zahida Nasreen with the appellant. They further stated that they tried to rescue the deceased but the appellant threatened them with death. The occurrence was also witnessed by Shahida Parveen and Muhammad Fazil (both not produced). Rehmat Khan stated that the appellant had been coming to the house of the deceased for taking back his wife Mst. Zahida Nasreen but the deceased had not agreed to it. Muhammad Khan (P.W.7) and Ali Asghar S.H.O. supported the recovery of blood-stained knife P.1 at the instance of the appellant. The rest were the formal witnesses.

6. Muhammad Mansha appellant was examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. He admitted that he was married to Mst. Zahida P.W. He denied that she had returned to the house of her parents after having quarrelled with him. He further denied to have gone to the house of his in-laws several times for bringing back his wife lie also denied to have gone to the house of his in-laws on 9-6-1979, for the aforesaid purpose and when the deceased refused to send Mst Zahida Nasreen, he inflicted knife blows to the deceased. He stated that he was arrested from his house. He did not admit the recovery of blood-stained knife P.1. He explained that he was involved in this case so as to obtain divorce from him. He was not aware of immorality of his wife. He did not lead any evidence in defence.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no light at the time of occurrence; that Mst. Zahida Nasreen and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws were present but before they woke up, the assailant or assailants had run away; that Rehmat Khan P.W. was not present at the spot and he was called from his house after the occurrence; that injuries had not been inflicted with knife P.1 and appeared to have been inflicted with Chhury; that the deceased had put up resistance at the time of occurrence; that the appellant was arrested soon after the occurrence but no blood was found on his clothes; that the recovery of the blood-stained knife was falsely planted on the appellant; that even if the prosecution version was accepted, it was a case of provocation:

8. The learned counsel for the State contended that the appellant had come determined to commit the murder and he was carrying a knife with him; that the appellant had come to the house of the deceased at Degarwela and he had been talking to the family of the deceased till midnight; that Rehmat Khan P.W. who lived in the same Haveli had joined the family talk and was present et the time of occurrence; that the eye-witnesses were natural and their presence could not be doubted; that Mst. Zahida Nasreen, the wife of the appellant had made statement against her husband; that blood-stained knife had been recovered at the instance of the appellant; that the appellant was rightly convicted and proper sentence awarded.

9. Rehmat Khan complainant and Mst. Raj Begum deceased lived in the same Ihata. There was an intervening wall four feet high in between the houses of the complainant and the deceased. There was a passage connecting their houses. Mst. Zahida Nasreen and Muhammad Nawaz P.Ws. were natural witnesses. Their presence at the spot could not be challenged. Rehmat Khan complainant who lived in the same Ihata was also a natural witness. He joined the family of the deceased at about 10-00 p.m. and remained with the family till the occurrence. The complainant mentioned in the F.I.R. and also stated at the trial that a lantern was lit at the time of occurrence. The mere fact that the lantern was not mentioned in the inquest report and was not taken into possession could not affect the testimony of the complainant regarding the presence of the lantern. The case had been registered prior to the preparation of the inquest report. The investigation started after the case was registered. It was clearly mentioned in the F.I.R. that a lantern was lit near the place of occurrence. Since the Investigating Officer reached the spot after sun-rise, he omitted to take into possession the lantern. Even if the presence of lantern was excluded, keeping in view the relationship of the appellant with the witnesses, it was not difficult for the witnesses to identify the appellant. The cots of the witnesses were quite close to the place where the deceased was attacked. In these circumstances, we hold that the eye-witnesses were in a position to identify the appellant. There is no reason for the eye-witnesses to involve the appellant falsely in the case. It was a case of solitary accused. The eye-witnesses could not substitute the appellant in place of the real culprit. The eye-witnesses were empty-handed and it was difficult for them to apprehend the appellant at the spot. They made an effort but were threatened with death. The three eye-witnesses fully corroborated each other. We have not come across any material discrepancy in their statements. They did not contradict their earlier statements made before the police. They gave correct account of the occurrence and there was no infirmity to reject their testimony.

10. The appellant was arrested on G.T.S. Bus-Stand, Gujrat, on 10-6-1979. He was interrogated about the weapon of offence. He produced blood-stained knife P.1 from underneath a culvert. The knife was found to be stained with human blood vide reports of Chemical Examiner and Serologist. Muhammad Khan, a public witness supported the recovery. He was neither related to the deceased nor inimical towards the appellant. The recovery of blood-stained knife at the instance of the appellant stood proved through the evidence furnished by Muhammad Khan and the S.H.O.

11. There was ample evidence on record to come to the conclusion that Mst. Zahida Nasreen had left the house of the appellant after living for eight/nine days of the marriage and did not go back to the house of the appellant. The appellant had been visiting the house of his in-laws for taking back his wife but with little success. The suggestions put to the witnesses about the immorality of Mst. Zahida Nasreen were without any basis. In case the appellant had suspected his wife of immorality, he would not have gone to the house of his in-laws for bringing her back. In his statement also recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. he showed ignorance about the immorality of his wife. The questions about the loose character of Mst. Zahida Nesreen appeared to have been put by the learned counsel without instructions. The trial Court did not keep in mind the provisions of section 151 of the Evidence Act. Indecent and scandalous questions had been put. The injuries to the deceased could result with knife P.1, recovered at the instance of the appellant. We find little force in the contention that the injuries had been caused with Chhury and could not result with knife in question. After having considered the entire evidence, we agree with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge that Muhammad Mansha appellant was guilty of committing the murder of his mother-in-law Mst. Raj Begum and the occurrence was seen by the three eye-witnesses and the recovery of blood-stained knife P.1 at the instance of the appellant also stood proved. The wife of the appellant had gone back to the house of her parents. The appellant had visited the house of his in-laws several times in order to bring back his wife. He last visited the house on 9-6-1979. He had been trying to convince the deceased to send back Mst.. Zahida Nasreen but when the deceased gave flat refusal, he inflicted two knife blows as a result of which the deceased expired. Keeping these circumstances in view we reduce the sentence of Muhammad Mansha to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rupees fifteen thousand or in default in payment of fine to under R.I. for three years. The order of compensation is also maintained.

The entire amount of fine and the amount of compensation shall be paid' to the legal heirs of the deceased. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. shall be given to the appellant and the period spent by him as under trial prisoner shall be counted towards his sentence.

The death sentence of Muhammad Mansha is not confirmed.

S. G. D Death reduced to life imprisonment.