MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus STATE
RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J .---Muhammad Ramzan (65-70) years was sent for trial by the Police Station Qadar Pur, District Jhang for the murder of Muhammad Aslam (35). Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang vide judgment dated 16-3-1991 convicted and sentenced Muhammad Ramzan under section 302, P.P.C. to death with a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default three years' R.I. It was directed that the fine, if recovered, one-half of it shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. He was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. to five years' R.I. with fine of Rs.5,000 or in default one year R.I. fine if recovered one half was directed to be paid to Mst. Shehzadan. The convict has appealed through jail. The case is also before us for the confirmation of death sentence. Both the matters will be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as disclosed in F.I.R., Exh.PD, lodged by Haq Nawaz was that on 18-7-1989 the first informant with leis son Muhammad Aslam, Mst. Shehzadan, his daughter-in-law alongwith Allah Bakhsh and Muhammad Afzal came to the house of Muhammad Ramzan for effecting compromise. At night they slept in the house of Muhammad Ramzan at about 1-30 at night, first informant got up to urinate and saw Muhammad Ramzan giving blow with hatchet on the right cheek and ear of Muhammad Aslam and second blow landed on his neck. Whereafter two more injuries welt: caused to him. Everybody woke up and Mst. Shehzadan stepped forward to rescue Muhammad Aslam, who was also given hatchet blow on her left hand. First informant and other did not try at apprehend the accused on account of fear, Muhammad Aslam expired at the spot and the accused with hatchet ran away. The motive for the occurrence was that 7/8 months earlier Mst.Shehzadan and Zubaidan, daughters of Muhammad Ramzan, accused, taken away by two sons of first informant and while leaving they had also caused injuries to Muhammad Ramzan, accused. Therefore, the present occurrence.
3. The occurrence in this case has taken place on 19-7-1989 at midnight, inside the house of Muhammad Ramzan, accused, four miles away from the Police Station Qadarpur. The complaint Exh.PD was lodged on the same day at 3-00 a.m. on the statement of Haq Nawaz (P.W.8), which was recorded by Ghulam Haider, S. I. (P. W. 11) near Railway Station Mandi Shah Jewna. Formal F.I.R. Exh.PD/1 was drawn on the same day at 3-30 a.m. by Khizar Abbas. Muharrir Head Constable (P.W.3) at P.S. Qadarpur.
4. Ghulam Haider, S.H.O. (P.W.11) after recording the statement Exh.PD sent the same to the Police Station for registration of the case and himself came to the spot. He prepared the injury statement Exh.PB, inquest report Exh.PB/3 and then sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The injury statement Exh.PC/2 of Mst. Shehzadan was also prepared by him at the spot. The blood-stained earth was secured vide memo. Exh.PF as well as blood stained cot vide memo. Exh.PG. He arrested the accused on the same day, who led the police to his residence and got recovered the blood-stained hatchet P.1, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PE. He got all memos. attested from the witnesses. The site plan Exh.PA and Exh.PA/1 was got prepared by a Draftman and gave his notes in red-ink thereunder. After usual investigation he challaned the accused.
5. Doctor Allah Bakhsh, M.O., D.H.Q. Hospital, Jhang (P.W.2) conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Muhammad Aslam on 19-7-1989 and found five incised wounds. In his opinion the death had occurred on account of injury No.2, which had cut major blood vessels on right side of neck causing haemorrhage and shock, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. All the injuries were ante-mortem caused with sharp edged weapon. On the same day he also examined Mst. Shehzadan and found incised wound on the back of left hand. A swelling of 5.5 c.m. was also observed on the top of head. Both the injuries were declared simple.
6. The prosecution in support of its case produced 12 witnesses in all. P.W.1, Munawar Asif, had prepared the site plan Exh.PA and Exh.PA/1 on the direction of the police. Doctor who had conducted post-mortem examination appeared as P. W.2 and has already been discussed. Khizar Abbas, Muharrir Head Constable (P.W.3) had drawn formal F.I.R. Exh.PD/l. Muhammad Akram, (Constable), (P.W.4) had kept sealed parcel in safe custody. Ghulam Fareed (P.W.6) has witnessed the recovery of blood-stained earth at the instance of the appellant and signed the memo. of recovery Exh.PE. Ghulam Shabbir (P.W.7) has witnessed the recovery of blood-stained earth from the spot. The eye-witness account was furnished by Haq Nawaz, Mst. Shehzadan and Muhammad Afzal (P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10) respectively. The case was investigated by Ghulam Haider, S.H.O. (P.W.11). Rest of witnesses are formal, therefore, need not to be discussed. At the completion of the prosecution evidence the appellant refuted the prosecution case and pleaded innocence. In answer to a question he further stated that on the fateful night he woke up and found the deceased in compromising position with Mst. Shehzadan, therefore, under grave and sudden provocation he committed murder. He did not appear in his defence on oath; however, he produced in defence evidence one witness, Muhammad Amir Khan, Inspector, to whom the case was entrusted for investigation, on the application of Haq Nawaz, but the same was withdrawn before any investigation could commence.
7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case of the prosecution was highly doubtful. Argued that presence of the eye witnesses was not possible, therefore, no reliance on the statements could be placed. Asserted that the prosecution case if put in juxtaposition with the defence plea then the defence plea appears more plausible. The contentions were opposed by the learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant.
8. We have heard the learned counsel at length and gone through the file. The prosecution in order to establish its case has mainly relied upon eye witnesses and sought corroboration from the recovery of blood-stained hatchet, which was ultimately found to have been stained with human blood. So far as the recovery of blood-stained hatchet at the instance of the appellant is concerned, we propose not to place any reliance on it. Consistent prosecution's case was that after the occurrence the appellant ran away from the spot alongwith his hatchet. It is also in evidence that after the occurrence he did not come back to his house till arrested. Yet according to the prosecution evidence the blood stained hatchet was recovered from his house, which could not be possible. So far as ocular account is concerned it has been furnished by Haq Nawaz, Mst.Shehzadan and Muhammad Afzal (P.W.8, P.W.9 and P.W.10) respectively. As far as time and place of occurrence is concerned, there is no dispute from either side. The defence has also conceded that the deceased was done to death with a hatchet by the appellant, while he was sleeping at his house. The only question which remains to be resolved is under what circumstances Muhammad Aslam, deceased, was done to death. According to the eye-witnesses, they came to the house of the appellant to effect a compromise regarding some dispute. It was further asserted by the eye-witnesses that at night they slept on the cots inside the house of the appellant where men-folk were on one side and women-folk on the other in the same courtyard. The eye-witnesses woke up on hearing commotion and witnessed the occurrence. What transpired before the occurrence is not known to the eye-witnesses. The occurrence had taken place in the presence of male witnesses yet none of them stepped forward. Instead Mst. Shehzadan tried to rescue Muhammad Aslam and was injured in the process as well. It is strange that a woman after crossing the courtyard came to the spot, whereas the complainant and his witnesses did not gather courage to step forward in spite of the fact that at the time of occurrence the appellant was between the age of 65 and 70 years. The conduct of the first informant is highly unnatural. There is no explanation available why other inmates of the house i.e. wife of the appellant and his other children were not cited as witnesses. According to the evidence they were not even associated with the investigation. This is not only strange but also causes grave doubt in the manner the investigation was conducted. The possibility that they did not support the prosecution version could not be ruled out and that is why their statements were not recorded by the Investigating Officer.
9. Keeping defence version in juxtaposition with the prosecution evidence we are of the view that the defence version appears to be more plausible for the reasons already discussed above. Therefore, we partly accept the appeal and convert the conviction and sentence from under sections 302, P.P.C. to 304, Part I, P.P.C. and reduce the sentence to 10 years' R.I. The conviction and sentence under section 307, P.P.C. is, however, maintained. The sentence of fine or/imprisonment in default thereof on both counts is maintained. The appellant shall also be given the benefit of section 382-B of Cr.P.C. The death sentence is not confirmed. Sentences shall run concurrently.
N.H.Q./M-2615/L Order accordingly.