AMIR Versus STATE
This criminal appeal and criminal revision No. 66 of 1979/BWP., which are being decided by means of this single judgment, arise out of the judgment, dated 17‑7‑1979 pronounced by Mr. Sibtain Raza Naqvi, the then learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, who had convicted Muhammad Shah, the appellant, under section 302 of the P.P.C. and had ordered him to suffer life imprisonment. He has been fined Rs. 4,000 or to suffer six months' R.I. in default thereof. Out of this fine, if recovered, Rs.3,000 have been directed to be paid by way of compensation to the heirs of the deceased as envisaged under section 544 A of the Cr.P.C. Muhammad Amin, the accomplice of the appellant, was however, acquitted. The criminal revision is intended for the enhancement of sentence awarded to Muhammad Shah appellant.
2. The facts, which led to the murder of Mst. Ghulam Aisha, in substance, are that Ghulam Dastgir complainant, the brother of Mst. Ghulam Aisha deceased, owned sixteen Acres of agricultural land in village Habibka. Out of this land, ten Acres of land had been given to Muhammad Amin accused for cultivation as a tenant and the remaining six Acres of land was being ploughed by Noor Muhammad, a tenant of the complainant. Noor Muhammad vacated the said land which was taken possession of by Ghulam Dastgir, the complainant. He had given this six Acres of land to Manzoor Ahmad for cultivation. Muhammad Shah, the appellant, happens to be the first cousin of the complainant, who desired that six Acres of land be given for cultivation to Muhammad Amin, his accomplice. The complainant did not accede to his request and Muhammad Shah, the appellant, nursed a grievance against the complainant.
3. On 28‑8‑1975 at 5‑45 a.m. Manzoor Ahmad had directed Subah Sadiq and one Ghulam Yaseen sons of Noor Muhammad to plough the land. They commenced ploughing the land when the appellant, who was riding a mare and was holding a gun, came there. Muhammad Amin, his accomplice, come on foot. The appellant directed Subah Sadiq to go away with their ploughs. The complainant, his mother Mst. Wazir Begum and his sister Mst. Ghulam Aisha had also accompanied him to the spot. Mst. Ghulam Aisha said to the appellant whether he was the uncle of their land. This fact incensed the appellant and he fired at Mst. Ghulam Aisha successively, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Ghulam Dastgir went to the Police Station Minchinabad and lodged the F.I.R. at 7‑45 a.m. although the police station is at a distance of twelve miles from his village. It was recorded by Muhammad Saeed Ahmad Qureshi, A.S.I. P.W.12.
4. The appellant had absconded and was arrested on 1‑1‑1976. He got recovered his gun P.I from his house on 11‑1‑1976, which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh. P.H. Since no empty was recovered from the spot, it was not sent to the Director Forensic Science Laboratory, Lahore. After the completion of the investigation, the challan of the appellant and Muhammad Amin was submitted. As a sequel to the impugned trial, the appellant was awarded the aforementioned punishment whereas Muhammad Amin, who is stated to have held Lalkara only, was acquitted.
5. On 27‑8‑1975 at 10‑t10 a.m. Dr. Wahid Bakhsh Bhatti P.W.11 conducted the post‑mortem examination of Mst. Ghulam Aisha deceased and found the following injuries on her corpse:
(1) Gun shot contused wound 4" x 3" x skull bone deep on upper 1/3rd on back and front of left 1/3rd upper arm. The edges of the wound were scorched and blackened.
(2) Contused gun shot wound. 1" x 1" x chest and left lungs deep. Stomach and liver contused, lacerated, deep on back of lower one‑third of chest back wall. The edges of wound were scorched. The skin was blackened. The margin of the wound were scorched. On opening the wound, the cork of cartridges were removed.
(3) Contused gun shot wound 6" x 3" x bone deep, in front of upper and middle of one‑third of right thigh. The edges of surface of the wound were scorched and blackened.
(4) Contused wound 1/8" x skin deep in front of side of lower part of abdomen. Pellets were removed from the wound and handed over to the police.
(5) Contused circular wound 1/4" x 1/2" x penetrated middle part of abdomen with edges averted contused.
In the opinion of this Medical Expert injuries Nos. 1, 3 and 4 had damaged the vital parts of the body of the deceased and had proved fatal whereas injuries Nos. 2 and 5 were found grievous. He has added that the deceased had taken her food about 4 or 5 hours before this incident.
6. Ghulam Dastgir P.W.7, who happens to be the real brother of the deceased, has endorsed the contents of the F.I.R. and has repeated the story as narrated by him to the Police Officer. About the motive, he has stated that the appellant did not like that six Acres of land be given to Manzoor as he wanted it to be given to Muhammad Amin. The complainant has also testified that the appellant wanted to marry his mother Mst. Wazir Begum on account of greed and avarice of land and he abducted his mother Mst. Wazir Begum and Mst. Ghulam Aisha had lodged the F.I.R. Muhammad Shah appellant was challaned in that case but was subsequently acquitted. The appellant had quarrelled with Usman and faced trial in that case and in that case too he was acquitted. These cases were not narrated by the complainant in the F.I.R. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was suspected of having illicit relations with Yaseen P.W. She was a Pardanasheen lady and the reason for the arrival of the sister and the mother of the complainant at the spot was that Amin accused had told them that they would plough the land given to Manzoor the next day.
7. Ghulam Yaseen P.W.8 and Mst. Wazir Begum P.W.9, the mother of the deceased. have corroborated the story narrated by Ghulam Dastgir. Allah Dim P.W.6 has stated that he had seen the back of the appellant, who was riding a mare and then saw Mst. Ghulam Aisha in an injured condition. According to him, Ghulam Yaseen, Ghulam Dastgir and Mst. Wazir Begum were at the spot. When cross‑examined, he tried to assist the accused by stating the many men including the trackers collected at the spot. But he does not state that the tracks were traced on the spot.
8. The story regarding the recovery of gun is of no consequence as it was not sent to Ballistic Expert for comparison as no empty was found ‑from the spot), during the investigation of this case.
9. The learned trial Court has not believed the motive for the commission of this offence. He was influenced by the fact that Muhammad Shafi P.W.411 Patwari Halqa has stated that Amin was in possession of the fields which comprised the spot. This revenue Patwari appeared before the learned trial Court to prove the site plans and was not having Khasra Girdawri with him. The simple statement that Amin was in possession of these fields is not enough unless supported by the record. There was a dispute regarding the possession of the said land because two or three furrows had been made in field No.21 where the incident took place. The remark of Mst. Ghulam Aisha to the appellant that the latter was not the uncle of the land had enraged the appellant so much that he alighted from the mare and by coming near to Mst. Ghulam Aisha successively shot at her. The motive for the commission of this crime has been proved f although the element of provocation is there which can mitigate the sentence awarded to the appellant. The fact as to when did the deceased take his last meals is not sure test of the time of the incident.
1.0. The eye‑witnesses, in forthright and unequivocal terms, have stated that Mst. Ghulam Aisha was murdered within their view. The medical evidence supports the fact that she was fired at from the close range and, therefore, the blackening and charring of the wound was visible. The abscondence of the appellant from the spot for more than four months also lends support to the view that none else but the appellant had committed this crime. The learned trial Court has made no mistake in convicting and sentencing the appellant. The sentence awarded to the appellant is appropriate. I, therefore, dismiss this appeal as well as the criminal revision. The benefit of section 382‑B of the Cr.P.C. is extended to the appellant. He was released on bail. He may be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve the remaining term of sentence.
M.Y.H./M‑1052/L Appeal dismissed.