Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 24 and Confirmation Case No. 15 of 1968, decided on 8th July 1969.
, S. 302, read with S. 300, Exception 1‑Murder‑Grave and sudden provocation‑Accused pleading to have killed wife and her paramour finding them in act of adultery‑Nothing in post‑mortem report of both deceased suggesting intercourse‑Both deceased found fully dressed and their dead bodies lying about 50 paces apart‑Plea of grape provocation in circumstances, held, falsified.
, S. 302‑Murder‑Infidelity of wife ‑Accused suspecting wife as carrying on with deceased‑No evidence however to show anything improper in conduct of wife or any illicit connection between parties‑Mere groundless suspicion, held, no extenuating circumstance.
, S. 302‑Murder‑Seatence-- Mitigation‑Murder committed in cold-blood and premeditated-‑Contention that criminal proceeding lingered on over 3 years due to transfers in Session Court--Delay in proceeding in itself, held, affords no justification for reduction of sentence, in circumstances of sentence, in circumstances of case.
A. H. Kureshi for Appellants.
Manzoor Hussain for the State.
Date of hearing : 24th June 1969.
‑All the appellants have been convicted under sections 302/149, 307/149, 323/149 and 148, P. P. C. by an Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur and sentenced to death, 7 years' R. I., 2 years' R. I. and 2 years' R. I. respectively. Further, the appellant Muhammad Bux has bean convicted and sentenced to one year's R. I. under section 19 (e) of the Arms Act. All the appellants had filed an appeal against their conviction and sentence. But we have to observe here that the appellant Sultan died after the appeal was filed, therefore the appeal by him abates. The case is also before us for confirmation of the sentence of death passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore we shall dispose of both the reference and the appeals by this judgment.
2. The facts material to this case are as follows : The appellants Kundhal, Amir Bux and Nuro are real brothers, whilst the appellants Muhammad Bux and Sultan are their first cousins. The appellants lived at the relevant time in village Attur Chandio, Taluka Shikarpur, Sukkur District. Murad Bux deceased, and his brothers P. Ws. Wabid Bux and Ghous Bux also lived in that village and their houses were very near the houses of the appellants. Their sister, P. W. Mst. Gullan lived in another village at a call's distance from there. The appellant Muhammad Bu: suspected Murad Bux deceased of carrying on with his wife, Mst. Kazbanu, therefore he had warned Murad Bux not to pass near his house. On 23rd April 1965 at about sunrise time Murad Bux and P. Ws. Ghous Bux and Kist. Gullan were going from their house through the village to their fields. About 20 or 25 paces from the house of P. W. Ghous Bux was the otaq of the appellant Nuru, and as they passed that otaq, the appellants came out of the said otaq. The appellant Muhammad Bux was armed with a country made pistol. The appellant Amir Buy was armed with a single barrel gun and the other appellants were armed with hatchets. The appellant Muhammad Bux challenged Murad Bux and fired his pistol at Murad Bux who fell down and died. Meanwhile, P. W. Ghous Bux had challenged the appellants, therefore the appellant Nuru tried to attack him with his hatchet, but he grappled with the appellant Nuru and made him fall down. Meanwhile on the alarm raised by P. W. Ghous Bux and Mst. Gullan and the pistol shot, P. Ws. Wahid Buy, Pandhi and Rehmatullah, who were sitting in their houses, came running to the virdat and saw the occurrence. As P. W. Wahid Bux approached the appellant, Amir Bux challenged him and fired at him with his gun and Wahid Bux was hit on his left arm and fell down. Meanwhile, we have observed, the appellant Nuru was grappling with P. W. Ghoul Bux, therefore the remaining appellants attacked P. W. Ghous Bux and injured him so that the appellant Nuru was able to free himself from P. W. Ghous Bux. Then all the appellants went away and, after a while, P. W. Wahid Bux and others heard cries from the houses of the appellants, which were only about 10 or 15 paces from the vardat, and they saw the five appellants drag Mst. Kazbanu out of the house and inflict blows on her, then they left her by the side of a heap of rubbish after killing her with hatchet blows and then went away to their houses. Accordingly, leaving the other prosecution witnesses at the vardat, P. W. Ghous Bux went to his Nekmard P. W. Fazul Khan and informed him of the occurrence. P. W. Fazul Khan directed him to lodge a report at the Sultan Kot Police Station, therefore he immedi ately went there and lodged a report at 8‑30 a.m. which was recorded by P. W. Dost Muhammad, A. S. I. After recording the F. I. R., P. W. Dost Muhammad A. S. I. set out with P. W. Ghous Muhammad for the vardat in order to commence investigations. But on the way, about a furlong from Sultan Kot Police Station, they crossed the appellant Muhammad Bux. P. W. Ghous Bux pointed out this appellant to P. W. Dost Muhammad A. S. I., therefore P. W. Dost Muhammad A. S. I. interrogated the appellant. The appellant admitted the killing and produced a country made pistol from the folds of his trousers, therefore P. W. Dost Muhammad sent for Mashirs Ismail and P. W. Ghulam Sarwar and arrested the appellant Muhammad Bux and secured the pistol vide mashirnama Exh. 40. The turban, shirt and godh which the appellant was wearing were blood‑stained, therefore he recovered these blood‑stained clothes vide mashirnama Exh. 41. P. W. Dost Muhammad A. S. I. then went to the vardat and he saw P. W. Wahid Bux lying injured. He also saw the dead bodies of Murad Bux and Mst. Kazbanu and sent them for post‑mortem examination which was carried out by P. W. Dr. Hamidullah. He also saw a scythe at the vardat which he secured and prepared a mashirnama of the vardat (Exh. 28). Then he sent P. W. Ghous Muhammad and Wahid Bux for treatment to the local hospital, and commenced investigations. On the same day he arrested the appellants Amir Bux, Sultan and Kandhal. The appellant Amir Bux volunteered to produce his licensed gun from his house which was found to contain an empty cartridge. Accord ingly, P. W. Dost Muhammad secured the gun and cartridge vide mashirnama (Exh. 31). Similarly, after his arrest, the appellant Sultan volunteered to produce a blood‑stained hatchet which he secured vide Mashirnama (Exh. 32). These recoveries were witnessed by P. W. Fazul Khan. P. W. Dost Muhammad was not able to arrest the appellant Nuru as he was absconding, but this appellant was finally arrested on 21st July 1965. The guns recovered were sent to a Ballistic Expert for examination whilst the blood‑stained articles were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser for a report. After completing investigations the appellants were challaned.
3. In his statement in the committal Court the appellant Muhammad Bux said that on the morning of the occurrence, a: he was going from his house to his fields, he saw Murad Bu) holding his wife in his lap behind a heap of rubbish, therefore he challenged Murad Bux who started to run. As he (the appellant) had a gun and a hatchet, he fired at Murad Bux and killed him, then he killed his wife with his hatchet. But in his statement in the Sessions Court he said that on the morning of the occurrence, when he left his house for his fields, he was armed with a pistol and, as lie passed a heap of rubbish near his house, he saw Murad Bux and his wife committing inter course, therefore he declared Murad Bux Karo and killed him with his pistol. A hatchet was lying beside Murad Bux, therefore he seized the hatchet and killed Mst. Kazbanu with hatchet blows in consequence of which his own clothes were blood‑stained. After that he went with the hatchet and the pistol to the Sultan Kot Police Station and reported the occurrence and produced the pistol and the blood‑stained hatchet before the S. H. O., Sultan Kot Police Station. He denied the presence of the other appellants and of the prosecution witnesses at the occurrence. All the other appellants denied even their presence at the occurrence and stated that they had been falsely implicated on account of enmity. The appellants Amir Bux and Sultan denied the recoveries attributed to them. The appellants did not produce any evidence in their defence.
4. The prosecution case is based on the ocular evidence supported by the recoveries, therefore we shall first examine the ocular evidence. P. W. Ghous Bux was the brother of the deceased. He said in his evidence that, as it was the harvest season, his sister Mst. Gullan had come to his house to help them to harvesting, therefore on the morning of the occurrence, shortly after sunrise, she (Mst. Gullan) and the deceased were going to their fields through the village. After they had passed the otaq of the appellant Nuru, the appellants challenged them. Muhammad Bux and Amir Bux were armed with a pistol and a single barrel gun respectively, whilst the other appellants were armed with hatchets. The appellant fired at his brother Murad Bux who was hit in the neck and fell down on the ground. As he (Ghous Bux) challenged them, the appellant Nuru attacked him, therefore he grappled with him and made Nuru fall down on the ground. Meanwhile, on the cries raised by Mst. Gullan and him and the gun report, P. Ws. Wahid Bux, Rehmatullah and Pandhi came to vardat. The appellant Amir Bux threatened his brother Wahid Bux and told him not to approach. Then Amir Bux fired his gun at Wahid Bux who fell down on the ground. Meanwhile, the other appellants went to Nuru's aid so that Nuru freed himself from his grip, then all the appellants went away. He saw that his brother Murad Bux was dead. Within a few minutes they heard cries from the houses of the appellants which were 10 or 15 paces away from the vardat, then they saw the appellants dragging Mst. Kazbanu out and inflicting blows on her. Finally, they brought her beside a heap of rubbish and the appellants Nuru, Kundhai and Sultan inflicted hatchet blows on her and killed her. Then the appellants went away to their houses. Accordingly he left P. Ws. Pandhi and Rehmatullah at the vardat and first went to his Nekmard P. W. Fazul Khan who lived about a mile away and informed him about the occurrence. P. W. Fazul Khan told him to lodge a report at the Sultankot Police Station, therefore he went arid lodged the report after which investigations commenced. This evidnce is fully supported by that of his sister Mst. Gullan. It is also supported by P. Ws. Wahid Bux, Pandhi and Rehmatullah who came after the appellants had shot Murad Bux, but they all saw the attack against Wahid Bux and the murder of Mst. Kazbanu. The houses of these witnesses were within 50 paces of the vardat, therefore they are natural witnesses. Additionally, the ocular evidence is supported by that of P. W. Fazul Khan who was also the mashir of the recoveries and of the vardat. P. W. Fazul Khan has said that on the morning of the occurrence P'. W. Ghous Bux had come and informed him of the occurrence. Ire said that P. W. Ghous Bax had told him that the appellants had declared Murad Bux Karo, and the appellant Muhammad Bux had killed Murad Bux with a pistol and then all the appellants had murdered Mst. Kazbanu with hatchet blows and lathi blows and that the occurrence had been witnessed by Mst. Gullan. P. W. Fazul Khan also said that he had directed P. W. Ghous Bux to lodge a report at the Sultan Kot Police Station and had himself gone to the vardat, and seen the dead bodies of the deceased and a trail of blood from one of the houses near the vardat to the dead body of Mst. Kazbanu, therefore this evidence supports the ocular evidence that Mst. Kazbanu was dragged out of her father's house and killed by hatchet blows and also corroborated, the testimony of P. W. Ghous Bux.
5. If the ocular evidence is to be believed, then it is obvious that the plea of grave and sudden provocation raised by the appellant Muhammad Bux is false, therefore learned counsel first argued that the occurrence had taken place at midnight in the com plete absence of any eye‑witness. This argument was based on the evidence of P. W. Dr. Hamidullah Niazi who had carried out the post‑mortem and a statement of P. W. Ghous Bux in the lower Court. In the Sessions Court P. W. Ghous Bux had said that on the morning of the occurrence they had set out for their fields without having breakfast, but in the lower Court he had said that he and the deceased had had breakfast before they left for the fields. P. W. Dr. Hamidullah Niazi has said in his evidence that both the stomach and the bladder of both the deceased were empty and that they must have had the last meals four or five hours before the occurrence therefore learned counsel stated that the statement of all the prosecution witnesses that the occurrence took place in the morning was false. In view of the medical evidence he submitted that the last meal taken by the deceased must have been at 7 or 8 p.m. on the previous day so that Murad Bux must. have been murdered at about midnight. But this is hardly consistent with the fact that the bladder of the deceased Murad Bux was also empty according to the medical evidence. Further, according to the appellants, the night of 22/23rd April was a dark night, therefore it is difficult to believe that the appellant could have killed Murad Bux by a single shot of his pistol on a dark night. Further, this plea is contrary to the appellant's statement in both the Courts below that the occurrence took place on the morning of 23rd April 1965 as he was himself going to his fields. Learned counsel's argument is therefore without merit, and tile only question for: consideration is whether the appellant Muhammad Bux surprised his wife in the act of adultery as stated by him. According to the mashirnama of the vardat (Exh. 28) both the deceased were fully clothed. There is nothing in the post‑mortem reports of either of the deceased to suggest that they had intercourse nor were their clothes stained in any manner. Additionally the body of Mst. Kazbanu was lying about 50 paces from that off Murad Bux deceased, and according to P. Ws. Fazul Khan and Dost Muhammad A. S. I. who prepared the mashirnama of the vardat Exh. 28 there was a trail of blood from near the house of Ghous Bux, the father of Mst. Kazbanu, to her dead body which was lying at about 33 paces from that of Murad Bux. If gist. Kazbanu had been caught in the act of adultery with Murad Bux, as alleged by her husband Muhammad Bux, we have no doubt that he would have killed her on the spot and it would have been impossible for her to escape to her father's house, therefore the fact that her body was lying at a distance from that of Murad Bux and the fact that there was a trail of blood from her father's house not only falsifies the plea of Muhammad Bux but it provides strong corroboration of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that Mst. Kazbanu had been dragged out of her father's house and killed with hatchet blows.
6. Additionally, as to the ocular evidence, the appellant Muhammad Bux has admitted P. W. Wahid Bux's presence at the occurrence and his presence is also proved by the gunshot injury to him. However, P. W. Ghous Bux had also claimed to have been injured in the scuffle with the appellants and P. W. Dr. Hamidullah, who examined him on the same day, has said in his evidence that he had three abrasions and a contusion, and that. the injuries were not self‑inflicted. P. W. Dost Muhammad A. S. I. has also said that P. W. Ghous Bux had injuries when he came to lodge his F. I. R. These injuries corroborate P. W. Ghous Bux's evidence and prove his presence at the occurrence. On the whole, the evidence of the brothers P. Ws. Ghous Bux and Wahid Bux is consistent and supports the prosecution case. But in view of the large number of persons implicated in the offence and the tendency in such circumstances to implicate a larger number than was actually guilty, it would not be safe to rely on the evidence of P. Ws. Ghous Bux and Wahid Bux unless it is supported by other evidence. Apart from the recoveries, to which we shall refer, the evidence of P. Ws. Ghous Bux and Wahid Bux is supported by P. Ws. Mst. Gullan, Pandhi and Rehmatullah. Learned counsel therefore submitted that the evidence of P. W. Mst. Gullan should not be believed because she lived in another village and could not have present at the occurrence and that the evidence of P. Ws. Pandhi and Rehmatullah should not be believed because they did not have injuries, therefore they could not have witnessed the occurrence. But, as we have observed, Mst. Gullan lived at a call's distance, and she said that she had come to her brother's house on the morning of the occurrence in order to help him in harvesting. There is nothing unnatural or improbable in the explanation. No enmity has been alleged against leer except that she was a relation of the deceased. But merely because she was the sister of tier deceased we do not think she would implicate innocent persons, there is therefore no reason to disbelieve her evidence. As to P. Ws. Pandhi and Rehmatullah, it is true that they have not received any injuries. But this only means that they did not try to help P. Ws. Wahid Bux and Ghous Bux. They lived very near the vardat. No enmity has been alleged between them and the appellants, therefore in the circumstances discussed, we see no reason to doubt their evidence, the more so as their names have been mentioned in the F. I. R. lodged by P. W. Ghous Bux (Exh. 6).
7. Learned counsel then criticised the ocular evidence on the ground that it was further of discrepancies. Learned counsel pointed out that whilst in his evidence P. W. Ghous Bux had said that the appellant Muhammad Bux had killed Murad Bux by firing only one pistol shot, in his F. I. R. statement he had said that Muhammad Bux had fired "pistol shots" at Murad Bux. Again whilst P. Ws. Ghous Bux and Pandhi had said that the appellants Kundhai, Sultan and Nuru were armed with hatchets, according to P. Ws. Mst. Gullan and Rehmatullah, the appellant Kundhal had a lathi only or a lathi and a hatchet. We do not think that such discrepancies are material. Learned counsel then pointed out that, although all the prosecution witnesses had said that the appellant Amir Bux had fired at P. W. Wahid Bux from a distance of 5 or 6 paces. P. W. Dr. Hamidullah, who examined P. W. Wahid Bux, said in evidence that the injury to Wahid Bux must have been caused by an assailant who had fired from a close distance. Unfortunately, no question was put to Dr. Hamidullah to elucidate what he meant by a close distance therefore there is no merit in this criterion. Learned counsel then stated that whilst P. W. Ghous Bux said that the appellant Muhammad Bux had fired at his brother Murad Bux from a distance of two or three paces, according to P. W. Dr. Hamidullah, who carried out the post‑mortem of Murad Bux, the assailant had fired at Murad Bux from a distance of 7 or 8 inches only. This discre pancy is material and the contention of counsel that the medical evidence is to be preferred, because it is independent, is correct. But the discrepancy does not in any way advance the case of the prosecution or aggravate the guilt of Muhammad Bux, therefore it appears to be due only to an erroneous recollection of events. Additionally as we have observed, the ocular evidence is supported by that of P. W. Fazul Khan. It is true that P. Ws. Ghous Bux and Mst. Gullan were his harts. Merely because P. Ws. Ghous Bux and Mst. Gullan were his haris, we cannot believe that he would give false evidence in order to implicate the appellants on a charge of murder, the more so as absolutely no enmity has even been alleged against this witness. It is true, as pointed out by learned counsel, that according to P. W. Fazul Khan, P. W. Ghous Bux had not told him that P. Ws. Pandhi and Rehmatullah had also come on the alarm to the vardat and witnessed the occurrence. But this only shows that P. W. Fazul Khan was a witness of truth and that reliance can be placed on his testimony, therefore, on the whole, the ocular evidence appears to be reliable.
8. However, as a large number of persons have been implicated in the crime, learned counsel argued that it would not be safe to convict so many persons on the ocular evidence unless it was corroborated by independent evidence. We shall there‑fore examine the evidence of the recoveries.
9. As we have observed, blood‑stained clothes and a pistol were recovered from the appellant Muhammad Bux vide Mashirnama (Exh. 40), a blood‑stained hatchet was recovered from Sultan deceased, vide Mashirnama (Exh. 32) and a single‑barrel gun was recovered from the appellant Amir Bux vide Mashirnama (Exh. 39). The appellant Muhammad Bux has claimed that he had surrendered his pistol to the S. H. O., Sultan Kot Police Station, whilst the prosecution had claimed that, as he was coming to report the occurrence, P. W. Dost Muhammad A. S. I. had arrested him about a furlong from the Police Station anti secured his blood‑stained clothes and pistol. The recoveries from Muhammad Bux were witnessed by P.W. Ghulam Sarwar, who was a complete stranger to the appellants, therefore we see no reason to doubt his evidence and we accept the case of the prosecution about the recoveries from Muhammad Bux. Accordingly the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that this appellant murdered Murad Bux and jointly with other person, murdered his wife Mst. Kazbanu without any provocation. Although the blood‑stained hatchet was recovered from Sultan deceased, as his appeal has abated, it is not necessary to consider this recovery. There remains for consi deration the recovery of the gun from the appellant Amir Bux vide Mashirnama (Exh. 31). This recovery was witnessed by P. W. Fazul Khan whose evidence has impressed us, therefore we accept the evidence of this recovery. However, learned counsel advanced an ingenious argument to challenge this recovery on the basis of the medical evidence. It will be remembered drat, according to the prosecution, this appellant had fired at P. W. Wahid Bux. P. W. Dr. Hamidullah has described the wound to P. W. Wahid Bux as follows:
"A lacerated wound 8" x 4" x 2" on the anterior aspect of left arm and forearm, margins inverted and black gun powder embeded in it."
According to the Mashirnama (Exh. 31) the gun secured from the appellant Amir Bux was a 12 bore gun, therefore it had a long barrel, According to learned counsel, as the wound of Amir Bux contained gun powder, the injury to him could only have been caused by a pistol shot and not by a gunshot. In support off this argument he relied on a passage at page 62 in Burrard's "The Identification of Firearms and Forensic Ballistics". This passage states:
"'To sum up, however, it can be stated that in normal circumstances the presence of un-burnt powder grains mean that the shot was fired from a revolver or pistol; and that the shorter the barrel of the weapon used the greater will be the tendency to the presence of un-burnt or partially burnt powder."
It will be seen that the observations have reference to normal circumstances. This is also clarified by the following observations of Burrard at page 60:
"The proportion of the un-burnt powder to the whole charge depends on three factors‑
(1) The length of barrel of the weapon.
(2) The pressure.
(3) The type of powder.
These factors are important and deserve individual consideration."
It is therefore clear that, although the presence of gun powder would normally imply the use of a pistol, the possibility that a gun was used against P. W. Wahid Bux cannot be ruled out. We have observed that the gun secured from the appellant Amir Bux had contained an empty cartridge and both the gun and the catridge had been sent to a Ballistic Expert. P. W. Shah Jahan Khan for examination. In the opinion of P. W. Shah Jahan Khan, the empty cartridge was the cartridge of a shot which had been fired from the gun secured from this appellant. P. W. Shah Jahan Khan was also examined by the prosecution, but the appellants did not cross‑examine him on the plea now raised by them that the injury caused to P. W. Wahid Bux could not have been caused by a shot fired from this gun. There is therefore no evidence tin the basis of which we can hold that the injury to P. W. Wahid Bux could not have been caused by the gun secured from she appellant Amir Bux. Additionally, although the gun secured from him was a licensed gun, the appellant Amir Bux has given no explanation of the presence of the empty cartridge in the gun at the time of its recovery. In the circumstances discussed it appears to us that the recovery of the gun corroborates the evidence against Amir Bux. Learned counsel then argued that the murder of Murad Bux and Mst. Kazbanu could have been committed by the appellant Muhammad Bux alone therefore the other appellants had been falsely implicated. However even according to the appellant Muhammad Bux, P. W. Wahid Bux was present at the occur rence. It is also clear from the evidence that he had fired only a single pistol shot, but in order to save his brother, he has said that the same pistol shot which killed Murad Bux had also injured P. W. Wahid Bux. It is difficult for us to believe this story. Additionally, the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mst. Kazbanu was dragged out of her father's house and, according to P. W. Dr. Hamidullah, she had seven incised wounds caused by hatchet blows. The wound on her neck had cut all the underlying structures and the wound on her left mandible region was 6 x 2' x 2 ' and extended up to the upper part of the neck cutting all the under lying structures. In view of these injuries it is impossible for us to believe that the murder both of Murad Bux and Mst. Kazbanu, and the injuries to P. W. Wahid Bux could have been caused by Muhammad Bux only. It is obvious that the murders were committed by several persons who had gathered together for the purpose of killing Murad Bux and Mst. Kazbanu, therefore in the circumstances discussed we have no doubt that the appellant Amir Bux is guilty and has been rightly convicted.
10. In this view of the matter the prosecution has proved that the appellants Muhammad Bux, Amir Bux and Sultan deceased had taken part in the occurrence. The only question that remains for consideration is whether the guilt of the appellants Kundhal and Nuru have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Although we are of opinion that the ocular evidence is reliable, the case against these appellants is based only on ocular evidence. Although they are alleged to have used hatchets in the murder of lust. Kazbanu, no blood‑stained hatchets nor any blood‑stained clothes have been recovered from them. In these circumstances, bearing in mind the unfortunate tendency to implicate a larger number of persons in any offence than have actually committed that offence, as a rule of prudence, we do not think it would be safe to convict the appellants Nuru and Kundhal. Accordingly, we give them the benefit of doubt, allow their appeals and set aside the conviction and sentence passed against them.
11. There remains for consideration the question whether the sentence of death against the appellants Muhammad Bux and Amir Bux should be confirmed. We have held that the plea of the appellant Muhammad Bux that he committed the murders of Murad Bux deceased and Mst. Kazbanu deceased under grave and sudden provocation was false. However, learned counsel for the appellants argued that even if the plea of grave and sudden provocation was false, the appellant Muhammad Bux had suspected his wife of carrying on with Murad Bux, there fore, this suspicion justified a reduction of the sentence. The appellants have not produced any evidence to show that there were any illicit connections between Mst. Kazbano and Murad Bux, nor have they even cross‑examined the prosecution witnesses on this allegation. It is true that the brothers of Murad Bux deceased, P. Ws. Ghous Bux and Wahid Bux, have said that the appellant Muhammad Bux hat suspected that his wife Mst. Kazbanu deceased had carried on with Murad Bux deceased, but there is not a shred of evidence to show that there was anything improper in the conduct of Mist. Kazbanu. We accept the statement of P. W. Ghous Bux that the appellant Muhammad Bux had suspected his wife's fidelity but we do not think that a mere suspicion, which was totally groundless, can be treated as an extenuating circumstance so as to justify a rejection of the reference of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Learned counsel then referred us to the delays in the trial of the accused, and pointed out that though the occurrence took place in April 1965 the appellants were convicted nearly three years later in January 1968. This delay was not due to any fault on the part of the appellants but had been caused by transfers in the Sessions Court in which the appellants were being tried. We have to observe with regret that this delay was unfortunate. However, by itself it cannot justify a reduction of the sentence passed against the appellants in view of the fact that the murders committed by theta were cold blood and premeditated.
12. In the result, we allow the appeals of Kundhal and Nuru and reject the reference of the learned Additional Sessions Judge against these appellants therefore they shall be released forth with, unless required on any other charge. We dismiss the appeals of the appellants Muhammad Bux and Amir Bux, confirm the sentence of death against them and accept the reference of the Additional Sessions Judge against them.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer