MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus THE STATE
This is a jail appeal directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad dated 5-11-1992, made by the appellant Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani, who was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of Munir Ahmad and sentenced to imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs. 25,000 or six months' simple imprisonment in default. He has also been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the heirs of the deceased or to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months in default.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as given in the F.I.R. dated 8-7-1990 registered with Police Station Sadar, Faisalabad on the report of Ghulam Ghaus P.W.7, are that the complainant Ghulam Ghaus was on his way to his house from Mananwala alongwith his brother Munir Ahmad at about 7-15 p.m. on 8-7-1990. They reached near the Pucca road of Raza Town. Munir Ahmad was going ahead when Muhammad Ramzan alias Jani (the present appellant) armed with Chhuri, Muhammad Akram alias Kala armed with Chhuri, Muhammad Javed alias Kala armed with Chhuri and Muhammad Nawaz armed with iron Soowa came out of the bushes. Muhammad Ramzan raised a Lalkara that Munir Ahmad should not be spared. Muhammad Ramzan gave a Chhuri blow to Munir Ahmad, which hit him on his forehead above his right eye. Muhammad Javed accused gave two Chhuri blows to Munir Ahmad which hit his temple and cheek. Munir Ahmad fell on the ground. Muhammad Nawaz gave Soowa blows to Munir Ahmad which hit him above his right eye and on the left side of his abdomen near the ribs. All the accused persons then started dragging Munir Ahmad towards Raza Town. The complainant made hue and cry, on which Shaukat AIL Abdur Rashid, Asghar Ali and Munawwar Khan rushed to the place of occurrence while they were coming after offering Janaza prayer. On seeing the witnesses, all the accused persons left Munir Ahmad and ran away. Munir Ahmad succumbed to his injuries on the spot.
The motive as given in the F.I.R., is that Muhammad Ramzan accused suspected that Munir Ahmad had abducted his wife due to which grievance the four accused persons murdered the deceased Munir Ahmad with common intention. The F.I.R. was lodged promptly at the police station by the complainant.
3. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses in all. P.W.7 Ghulam Ghaus who affirmed the contents of furnished the eye-witness account the F.I.R. in his statement. P.W.8 Munawar Khan and P.W.9 Asghar Ali supported the ocular testimony of the complainant.
4. The post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Nasir Mahmood (P.W.11), Medical Officer, DHQ Hospital, Faisalabad, who stated that he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Munir Ahmad deceased on 9-7-1990 and found the following injuries on it:--
"(1) An incised wound 2 c.m. X c.m. scalp deep on the back midline of head.
(2) Contused mark 22 c.m. X 8 c.m. on the-back of right chest 3 c.m. from midline.
(3) An incised wound 2 c.m. X c.m. scalp deep on forehead right side 2 c.m. away from right eyebrow and 2 c.m. from midline.
(4) An incised wound -1 c.m. X c.m. scalp deep on the front of right side forehead c.m. from injury No. 3 and c.m. from midline.
(5) An incised wound 1-3/4 c.m. X c.m. scalp deep on the right side of forehead c.m. midline and 2 c.m. above injury No. 3.
(6) An incised would 2 c.m. X c.m. scalp deep on right front of forehead c.m. from midline and 2 c.m. from injury No. 3.
(7) An incised wound 1 c.m. X c.m. on mid front of forehead near heir-line.
(8) An incised wound 1 c.m. X c.m. scalp deep on the left side of head.
(9) An abrasion 3 c.m. X c.m. below the right eye 4 c.m. from midline.
(10) Stab wound 4 c.m. X 1 c.m. into DNP on the left front of chest below, 1 c.m. from left nipple and 8 c.m. from midline. On exploring injury No. 10 muscles below injury cut.
Anterior wall of left ventricle cut through and through.
(11) Stab wound 2 c.m. X 1 c.m. DNP on the left front of abdomen 8 c.m. from midline 12 c.m. below injury No.10. On exploring injury No. 11 muscle below injury No. 11 was found cut, peritoneum cut, small intestine cut at single site. '
(12) Contused marks 9 c.m. X 7 c.m. on the outer part of left abdomen, 17 c.m. below left axilla.
(13) Lac. wound 1 c.m. X 1/2 c.m. muscle. deep on the right knee, 3 c.m. away from midline."
In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock due to injuries Nos.10 and 11, which were caused by sharp-edged and pointed weapons, were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death individually as well as collectively in the ordinary course of nature. Probable time between injuries and death was few minutes and between death and post-mortem examination about 12 hours.
5. The investigation was conducted by Ghulam Farid (P.W.12), Sub Inspector, Police Station Sadar, Faisalabad. He arrested Muhammad Ramzan, the present appellant, Muhammad Javed and Muhammad Akram accused on 28-7-1990. From the personal search of Muhammad Ramzan a. revolver .32 bore was recovered and a separate challan under section 13 of the Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965) was prepared and the physical remand of the accused was obtained. On 6-8-1990 Muhammad Ramzan while in police custody, led to the recovery of blood-stained Chhuri (Exh.P.4) from his residential. house in Chak No.204/RB from underneath clothes lying on a cot. The recovery memo was attested by given up P.W. Muhammad Siddiq and Muhammad Yunus (P.W.5).
6. All the accused were brought to trial. Muhammad Ramzan, the present appellant, in his statement under.section 342, Cr.P.C. confessed to the murder but took the plea that it was an act committed under grave and sudden provocation. According to his statement, he and Munawwar, the brother of his wife, were preparing Maswaaks after sunset when the deceased came there alongwith the wife of the appellant. The deceased had put his arm around her waist. The appellant got infuriated and attacked the deceased like a mad man, without being aware as to where the deceased received the injuries from him, and Munawar, his co-accused. When Munir Ahmad deceased fell down, he was also hit by Munawar by bricks. The appellant removed the Dhoti of Munir Ahmad. The appellant also stated that due to enticement of appellant's wife the father of the deceased had disinherited him (declared him Aaq). However, the deceased refused to return the wife of the appellant. The appellant also admitted the recovery of the Chhuri used in the occurrence, but added that the police had deliberately stained it with blood. .
The appellant produced two witnesses in his defence. Muhammad Jamil (D.W.1) stated that in the year 1990 the appellant had worked with him as a labourer and that his wife had once remained with him for a month. Thereafter, he had heard that the wife of Ramzan had left the house, whereafter he heard that Ramzan had murdered some body. Abdur Rashid (D.W. 2) stated that he is a resident of the house contiguous to the house of the father of the deceased. In January 1990 two Punchayats were held at the Dera of Munir in the presence of the father of the deceased and the present appellant Ramzan and others. At the second Punchayat Ch. Muhammad Jamil told the deceased to return the wife of Ramzan and the deceased Munir promised to return her. D.W. 2 deposed that he heard that Munir had returned the wife of Ramzan but had again taken her away. According to him, Munir was murdered about four months after this occurrence.
7. The learned trial Court after appraising the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence, acquitted Muhammad Nawaz accused by giving him the benefit of doubt. As. stated above, Muhammad Ramzan, the present appellant, was held guilty under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.25,000 or simple imprisonment for six months in default. He was also directed to pay Rs. 25,000 compensation to the heirs of the deceased or to undergo another six months' simple imprisonment in default. Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Javed accused were held guilty under section 307/34 P.P.C. and were both sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 or three months' simple imprisonment in default as well as payment of Rs. 5,000 compensation each to the heirs of the deceased or to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months in default: I All the accused were given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the occurrence was an immediate result of grave and sudden provocation caused to the present appellant by the sight of the deceased walking with his arm around the waist of the wife of Ramzan appellant whereupon he and the brother of the wife of Ramzan could not resist the murder of Munir Ahmad deceased, therefore, the case was one of grave and sudden provocation. He, therefore, prayed for lesser punishment to the appellant. .
9. The motive in this case is an admitted one. The wife of Muhammad Ramzan appellant had been enticed/abducted by the deceased. The only point, on which the prosecution and the defence are at variance, is whether it was a case of premeditated murder or of grave and sudden provocation. I am inclined to agree with the observations of the learned trial Court that it is highly unlikely in our society that a woman would be seen walking or behaving indecently in public with a man who is not her husband (or even her own husband for that matter). The appellant did have a serious cause of annoyance against the deceased since the deceased had apparently developed illicit relations with the wife of the appellant. The prosecution has not effectively controverted this fact. However, the defence has not successfully established the immediate cause for grave and sudden provocation. The fact that Muhammad Ramzan appellant by his own admission had ruthlessly and indiscriminately given repeated Chhuri blows to the deceased like a mad man, eliminates the possibility of the deceased having been found walking with his arm around the waist of the wife of the appellant. If this had indeed been the case, the wife of the appellant should in normal circumstances have also been injured, but no evidence of her presence, or any injury being caused to her, has emerged from the record. In light of the above facts and circumstances, the sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant is neither harsh nor excessive. The conviction of the appellant by the trial Court and the sentence awarded to him is upheld. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. The appellant be informed of the result of the appeal through jail authorities.
N.H.Q./M-1812/1 Appeal dismissed.