ALLAH DITTA Versus STATE
Allah Ditta appellant was accused of the murder of his wife Mst. Macho Mai. He was tried for it by Ch. Inayat Ullah Cheema, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, who vide his judgment dated 31st January, 1978 found him guilty of the charge and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The fine, if realis ed, is to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased as compensation.
2. According to the story of the prosecution Mst. Bacho Mai deceased had been brought to the house of her father by him without the consent of the appellant, a day before the present occurrence. The appel lant followed her to the house of his in-laws and stayed for a night there. He was incensed on account of his wife leaving his house in his absence. He tried to persuade her to return to his house but when she resisted the appellant is alleged to have caused her death by strangulation at about 4.00 a.m. on 31st May, 1976 in the house of her father Khuda Baksh (P. W. 4) in village Todarpur, Tehsil Shujabad, District Multan.
3. The appellant has admitted that he has strangulated his wife but he has explained that he was driven to it as he was gravely and suddenly provoked on seeing one Gul Muhammad standing near the cot of his wife on the night of occurrence as he suspected an immoral contact bet ween the two.
4. The medical examination of the dead body reveals that she died due to asphyxia under Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has attacked the case of the prosecution and has challenged the conviction on the ground that the two eye-witnesses Khuda Bakhsh and Imam Bakhsh should not be believed as they are father and uncle of the deceased. He has further stated that Imam Bakhsh is living at a distance of 4 or 5 Killas from the place of occurrence and therefore his presence at the place of occurrence when it took place is doubtful. He has also stated that if the eye-witnesses had been there they would have, certainly done something to rescue the deceas ed. The learned counsel has stated that since the testimony of the eye witnesses is not reliable the only piece of evidence available is the statement of the appellant this statement should be considered as a whole and the explanation should be accepted. The learned counsel has argued that apparently the appellant did not state that he saw the deceased and the said Gul Muhammad in a compromising position for reasons of modesty and honour. He feels that something grave has certainly happened which impelled the appellant to kill his wife as there is not much of bad blood between the two sides which should be sufficient to enrage the appellant to the extent that he had to strangulate his wife to death.
6. As far as Imam Bakhsh P. W. is concerned, it is clear that he lives at a distance of 4-5 killas from the place of occurrence. He has explained that he was passing by the place of occurrence in order to cut fodder when he heard the cries of the deceased and was attracted to the place, A doubt may be expressed about the presence of Imam Bakhsh as it was only by chance that he was present at the place of occurrence right at the time when his niece was being killed. No such doubt can, however, be expressed in respect of Khuda Bakhsh. Khuda Bakhsh is the father of the deceased. The occurrence took place in his house. His presence in the house, therefore, cannot be excluded. He is a natural witness. Moreover, as admitted by the learned counsel himself there is no enmity between him and the appellant. There was a small matter of Mst. Bacho Mai having come to visit her father without the consent of her husband but this had not resulted in strained relations as is evident from the fact that appellant was a house guest for the night. The mere fact that Khuda Bakhsh is the father of the deceased is not enough to reject his testimony. What is more the appellant himself admitted that he has strangulated his wife. The more important question, therefore, would be to examine whether the explanation furnished by the appellant finds any support from the facts narrated at the trial.
7. The deceased came to visit the house of her father only a day before the occurrence. It is not probable that even if there was a liaison between her and the said Gul Muhammad, she had an opportunity to invite the said Gul Muhammad to her house during the night. The presence of her father and her husband in the house during the night would not provide the best of circumstances to invite a paramour. It is also in evidence that the appellant slept out in the verandah. The paramour therefore had to pass by the cot of the appellant in order to go to the cot of the deceased. All this does not stand to reason. It may also be observed that the deceased at the time of occurrence was pregnant and foetus of 4-5 months pregnancy was found in the uterus at the time of post- mortem examination.
8. The learned counsel for the State has argued that even if it is assumed that the said Gul Muhammad was present in the house the circumstances of his presence did not justify the killing of the wife under grave and sudden provocation as nothing objectionable was being done either by the deceased or by the said Gul Muhammad.
9. The learned trial Judge has not believed the version of the appel lant and has given reasons for doing so. I am also of the opinion that the introduction of Gul Muhammad by the appellant is an afterthought and is only a made up story. The appellant had no justification to kill his wife and there is no question of any grave and sudden provocation.
10. For these reasons I find no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.
Appeal dismissed,