ALLAH DITTA Versus STATE
ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.‑‑‑ Petitioner Allah Ditta son of Imam Din was tried by an Additional Sessions .Judge on two counts. He was convicted under section 31)2, P.P.C. for the murder of Muhammad Rafiq and sentenced to death and a tine of Rs.a,000 or in default thereof to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The fine if realised wits to be paid as compensation to the legal heirs of Muhammad Rafiq deceased. He was also convicted under section 307, P.P.C. for attempted murder on the person of Mst. Fatima and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000. Half of fine' on realisation was ordered to' be paid as compensation to Mst. Fatima Bibi.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal against his conviction and the matter was also referred to the High Court for confirmation of his death sentence. The learned high Court after assessment of the evidence dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentence.
3. The petitioner 'sent this petition from Jail which was listed before the Court but in view of the Presidential Order dated 6‑12‑1988 the sentence of the condemned prisoners was commuted to imprisonment for life. Therefore, the matter has been placed before me in Chambers for disposal.
4. The injured Mst. Fatima is the wife of the petitioner and the deceased Muhammad Rafiq was brother of Mst. Fatima and brother‑in‑law of the petitioner. The first incident was committed in the house of Mst. Fatima in between the night of 23rd/24th October, 1977. The petitioner attacked his wife Mst. Fatima with a hatchet when she was asleep in the house. He caused nine hatchet injuries to Mst. Fatima. The children got up and raised an alaram whereupon he ran away from the place of occurrence alongwith the weapon of offence. The petitioner then went to the dera where Muhammad Rafiq was sleeping and attacked him with the hatchet. The incident was witnessed by Muhammad Sharif (P.W.10) and Muhammad Hussain (P.W.11). They had gone to the dera to irrigate their land. They saw the accused inflicting injuries to the deceased. They requested him not to cause injuries to Muhammad Rafiq but they too were threatened with dire consequences. In their presence the accused gave repeated hatchet blows to the deceased which resulted in his death.
5. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution relied upon the ocular testimony of Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Hussain. Both these witnesses have consistently stated that in their presence, the accused had given hatchet blows to the deceased. Mst. Fatima corroborated the prosecution evidence and she has deposed about the injuries given to him by the petitioner. The statements of the witnesses have been supported by the medical evidence and according to Dr. Iqbal Javed, Mst. Fatima had received nine injuries. Vital organs of the deceased had been cut due to the injuries caused by the petitioner with a sharp‑edged weapon. According to the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The death of the deceased has not been disputed. Thus, the High Court found the prosecution evidence supported by the medical evidence which is reliable.
6. The next piece of evidence against the petitioner is the recovery of blood‑stained hatchet and the blood‑stained clothes of the petitioner on his pointation. The recoveries have been proved through the witnesses including the police officials and the learned trial Court and the High Court have given sound reasons for accepting this piece of evidence against the petitioner.
7. The third piece of evidence against the petitioner is the motive. According to the prosecution, after the death of father of Mst. Fatima, the property was distributed among the legal heirs, that is, brothers and sisters of Mst. Fatima. The sisters had abandoned their claim and their shares were devolved on their brothers and the petitioner was aggrieved against the transfer of the share of Mst. Fatima to her brothers. A suit for pre‑emption was filed on behalf of his minor son by him and he acted as next friend. The suit was compromised and Rs.500 were given to the petitioner It is the prosecution case that the petitioner nourished grudge against the transfer of share of Mst. Fatima to her brothers and he wanted that she should not deliver the landed property left by her father to her brothers. The motive has been established through the evidence of Mst. Fatima and Muhammad Sharif. The documents about the transfer of property have also been exhibited. All these facts fully corroborate the prosecution case.
The case of the petitioner was of total denial. He did not lead any evidence in defence but failed to rebut the prosecution allegation. Mst. Fatima is the wife of the petitioner. Therefore, there is no motive to falsely implicate her husband. The witnesses have been cross‑examined at length by the defence counsel but the evidence is coherent and consistent and no infirmity is found in the prosecution evidence. The case against the petitioner stood fully proved.
There is no force in this Jail Petition which is hereby dismissed.
OPINION OF SECOND JUDGE
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑ I concur with the above opinion.
ORDER OF THE BENCH
The petition is dismissed.
N.H.Q./A‑750/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.