RASHEED AHMAD Versus THE STATE
Rashid Ahmad (26 years) and Muhammad Oasim (17) years were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan for the murder of Murid Hussain deceased and vide his impugned judgment, dated 15-6-1989 Rashid Ahmad appellant was convicted and sentenced under section 302, P.P.C. to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000, in default whereof to suffer further R.I. for 3 years. The fine, if realised, was directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. Muhammad Qasim, co-accused was convicted under section 323, P.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. He has not filed appeal against his conviction. Rashid Ahmad appellant was also extended the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Rashid Ahmad has come up in appeal against the conviction and sentence. The complainant has preferred Criminal Revision No.76 of 1989/BWP for enhancement of sentence to both the accused. Both the matters shall be disposed of by this judgment.
2. The prosecution story in brief as unfolded in F.I.R. No.26/87 Euh.P.B. recorded at Police Station Sehja, District Rahimyar Khan on the statement of P.W.3 Jind Wadda complainant by Shahbaz Hussain S.I./S.H.O. (P.W.8) is to the effect that he was a labourer in Mauza Fatehpur Qureshian and Murid Hussain, his son was suspected of having illicit relations with Mst. Sakina wife of Siraj Ahmad by appellant Rashid Ahmad. The complainant party many a time had tried to convince Rashid Ahrtlad appellant and his father Muhammad Ramzan about innocence of Murid Hussain and lastly Muhammad Ramzan and Rashid Ahmad had called the complainant party to their village. P.W.3 Jind Wadda alongwith P.W.4 Allah Diwaya and P.W. Manzoor Ahmad (given up), all residents of Fatehpur Qureshian alongwith Murid Hussain deceased reached the house of appellant Rashid Ahmad at about 10-00 a.m. During the talks Rashid Ahmad stated that he had not faith in Murid Hussain and was not prepared to accept any evidence in his defence, on which at about 11-00 a.m. the complainant party had asked Murid Hussain deceased to go back to his house and they would try to pacify the accused party. Murid Hussain deceased left the place and the complainant alongwith his P.Ws. tried to prove innocence of Murid Hussain before Muhammad Ramzan. Meanwhile Rashid Ahmad appellant and Muhammad Qasim co-accused went away and after some time hue and cry of Murid Hussain was heard, on which P.W3 And Wadda alongwith P.W.4 Allah Diwaya and P.W. Manzoor Ahmad (given up) while running reached the spot and witnessed that appellant Rashid Ahmad and his co-accused Muhammad Qasim were giving injuries to Murid Hussain with Kassi and Sod respectively. While witnessing the P.Ws. reaching nearby accused Rashid Ahmad and Muhammad Qasim alongwith their weapons of offence while raising Lalkara that they had taken the revenge, escaped. The P.Ws. found Murid Hussain succumbed to his injuries. The accused had murdered Murid Hussain. Leaving behind P.W.4 Allah Diwaya and Manzoor Ahmad P.W. (given up) to guard the dead body, P.W.3 Jind Wadda complainant reached the po'.ice station and lodged the F.I.R.
3. The accused were challaned and sent up for trial. A charge under section 302/34, P.P.C. was framed against them, to which they denied and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 8 P.Ws. in all to substantiate its case.
4. Appellant Rashid Ahmad when examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution evidence against him as well as the recovery of blood stained Kassi P.9 at his instance. In answer to the question "Anything else you want to say?", he replied: --
"On the date of occurrence, I was irrigating my lands and I saw both Mst. Sakina, my brother's wife and Mureed Hussain deceased in wheat crop standing in the lands of Gul Muhammad in compromising position. Out of grave and sudden provocation I inflicted injuries to Mureed Hussain with Kassi. Nobody saw the said occurrence and the P.Ws. examined by the prosecution were not present at that time. After inflicting injuries to Mureed Hussain I threw the Kassi into canal. The Kassi recovered by the prosecution has been planted on me fictitiously."
He neither produced evidence in defence nor made statement on oath as envisaged under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court vide its impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that it was a blind murder and there was no motive for the accused to murder the deceased and moreover, if the accused had killed the deceased, he had killed him under grave and sudden provocation.
6. The motive behind the occurrence has been stated by P.W3 And Wadda in F.I.R. Exh.P.B. that Rashid Ahmad appellant suspected that the deceased had illicit relations with Mst. Sakina Bibi, his brother's wife and on the day of occurrence, the deceased alongwith his father, P.W3 Jind Wadda complainant and P.W.4 Allah Diwaya had visited the house of Rashid Ahmad to prove innocence of Murid Hussain and the appellant had objected to the arrival of Murid Hussain. P.W.3 Jind Wadda stated the same motive in the trial Court as narrated by him in the F.I.R. Exh.P.B. P.W.4 Allah Diwaya corroborated the statement of P.W.3 And Wadda pertaining to the motive. The motive behind the occurrence stands proved by the statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4.
7. The ocular testimony has been furnished on record by the statements of P.W.3 complainant Jind Wadda and P.W.4 Allah Diwaya. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased, whereas P.W.4 is the son-in-law of P.W.3. P.W.3 narrated in the F.I.R. Exh.P.B. that after hearing hue and cry of the deceased he alongwith P.W.4 rushed towards the place of occurrence and witnessed that appellant Rashid Ahmad with Kassi and his co-accused Muhammad Qasim with Soti were giving injuries to the deceased. P.W.4 has corroborated the statement of P.W.3 and stated that they had heard the noise of Murid Hussain deceased, whereafter they rushed to the place of occurrence and witnessed Rashid Ahmad appellant armed with Kassi and Muhammad Qasim with Sota and they were infecting blows on the body of Murid Hussain. Rashid Ahmad appellant inflicted Kassi blows on the head and neck of Murid Hussain. P.W.3 and P.W.4 had corroborated the statement of each other.
8. P.W.7 Dr. Muhammad Irshad Hamid on 11-3-1987 had conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased Murid Hussain and had found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) An incised wound 12 c.m. x 5 c.m. x vertebra (cervicle) deep to the front of the mid of the neck. Trachea, oesophagus, major vessels of neck cut. The hyoyid fractured. Cervicle vertebrae in the line of incision was fractured. Spinal cord completed transactide.
(2) A swelling 12 c.m. x 12 c.m. on the front of the right forearm 5 c.m. from right elbow joint. There was fracture of the right ulna and radius.
(3) Incised wound 10 c.m. x 1 c.m. x bone deep on the dorsal aspect to the right forearm 5 c.m. front right elbow joint.
(4) An incised wound 4 c.m. x 4 c.m. on the back of the right index and middle finger.
(5) An incised wound size 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. x muscle deep on the right ring finger.
(6) An incised wound size 5 c.m. x 3 c.m. x muscle deep on the outer side of the left forearm 8 c.m. from left elbow joint.
(7) D-shaped incised wound 12 c.m. x 5 c.m. x muscle deep 3 c.m. below from injury No.6.
(8) An incised wound 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. x bone deep, cutting frontal bone of the skull in same size of wound mengies intact.
(9) An abrasion 5 c.m. x 1/2 c.m. x superficial on the outer side of the left upper arm.
(10) An abrasion 3 c.m. x 1/4 c.m. x superficial 9 c.m. below from injury No.9.
(11) An abrasion 4 c.m. x 1 c.m. x on the outer side of the right upper arm 13 c.m. below from right shoulder joint. and had opined that the death occurred due to excessive haemorrhage leading to shock supplemented by transaction of the spinal cord as a result of injury No.l by sharp-edged weapon. All the injuries were ante-mortem. Injury No.l was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Time between injuries and death was within 2 to 3 minutes and time between death and post mortem examination within 24 to 36 hours. During cross-examination he stated that injuries Nos.9, 10 and 11 might be caused by falling on the ground on the hard surface, and not by a stick.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently urged before me that the ocular account furnished on record by the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 is not in consonance with the statement of P.W.7 Dr. Muhammad Irshad Hamid, who stated the medical aspect of the case i.e. conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.3 And Wadda complainant stated during cross-examination that Rashid Ahmad appellant inflicted 3 Kass, blows within his vision while Muhammad Qasim co-accused gave 5/8 Soti blows to the deceased, and both the accused were inflicting blows simultaneously. P.W.4 Allah Diwaya stated that he had witnessed Rashid Ahmad appellant armed with a Kassi and Muhammad Qasim co-accused armed with Soti, and both of them Were inflicting blows on the body of Murid Hussain. He alongwith others rushed to the place of occurrence and during the said period the accused had already inflicted injuries to the deceased and also within the view of P.Ws. 3 and 4 they inflicted injuries to the deceased. In the circumstances, I hold that the ocular account furnished on record by the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 is in consonance with the medical testimony stated by P.W.7.
10. Appellant Rashid Ahmad was arrested by P.W.8 Shahbaz Hussain, S.I./S.H.O. on 15-3-1987 and on 18-3-1987 he led to the recovery of blood stained Kassi from near the Abbasia canal from under the bushes. Appellant Rashid Ahmad dug out the earth and brought out Kassi P.9 and produced the same before P.W.8 who secured it vide memo. Exh.P.F. attested by P.W.4 Allah Diwaya. P.W.8 had prepared sealed parcel of the same. The reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist Exhs.P.N. and P.O., respectively are positive. The appellant had exclusive knowledge about the presence of P.9 as he had produced the same before the S.H.O. (P.W.8) after removing the earth. The recovery aspect of the case has been proved on record. Appellant Rashid Ahmad raised a specific plea that he had killed the deceased after witnessing him in compromising position with Mst. Sakina, his brother's wife. Keeping in juxtaposition the case of the accused with that of the prosecution, the plea raised by the appellant is not spelt out from the circumstances appearing in the case and the evidence on record. It was a broad day occurrence and no male and female could go in the wheat crop fields in the month of March when the residents of the vicinity are found busy in their work in the fields, the deceased and Mst. Sakina could not indulge in such nefarious act. Moreover, if the appellant had found the deceased in the company of Mst. Sakina in compromising position, then the appellant must have had also caused the death of Mst. Sakina or at least had caused injuries to her as well as had chased her. The defence has failed to prove on record that Mst. Sakina was present at the relevant time with the deceased or near the place of occurrence.
11. F.I.R. Exh.P.B. contains the name of the accused, the weapon carried by him, the witL;sses, the manner in which the occurrence took place, all are given therein. The motive behind the occurrence, the ocular account furnished by the statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 is in consonance with the medical aspect of the case stated by P.W.7. The ocular testimony is also corroborated by the recovery of blood-stained Kassi P.9 at the instance of the appellant and, excepting minor discrepancies here and there, the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to prove on record material dishonest E improvements made by the P.Ws. in their statements. P.W3 is the father of the deceased and P.W.4 is sister's husband of the deceased and their statements cannot be thrown away or brushed aside on account of their relationship with the deceased. There was no previous enmity between the parties and P.Ws.3 and 4 had no motive whatsoever to falsely involve the appellant in the present case. The P.Ws. have made their statements in a straightforward manner and implicit reliance can be placed upon their testimony.
12. Pursuant to the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing and proving its case beyond doubt against the appellant, and no exception can be taken to the impugned e judgment. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The connected Criminal Revision No.76 of 1989/BWP has no merit and is also dismissed.
N.H.Q./R-112/L Appeal dismissed.