Find a Lawyer

‑‑ S. 304‑Murder‑Evidence, appreciation of‑Prosecution story of murder of deceased supported by an injured witness coupled with evidence of extra‑judicial confession and recoveries of weapons from accused‑Conviction maintained, in circumstances.

‑‑‑ S. 304 ‑ Murder ‑ Sentence reduction in‑‑Accused injuring deceased on seeing him making love with their aunt ‑ Accused remaining in jail for a period of one year and 2 months‑‑Sentence reduced to period already served out, in circumstances.‑

Sahibzada Farooq Ali for Appellants.

Rana Muhammad Anwar for the State.

Date of hearing: 28th February, 1982.

This Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 1966, arises from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Multan, whereby, he on 18th June, 1966, convicted Jamal and Khurshid appellants under section 304/34,P.P: C: and 323/34, P. P. C. for causing the death of Muhammad Nawaz and for causing injuries to the P. Ws. and sentenced them to live years R. 1 each on the first charge and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each or default thereof, to one year's R. 1 and on the second charge to six months' R.I r each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. This occurrence took place on 10th June, 1965 at 3/4 a. m. at Birwala Dakhli, Mauza Tibba Masoodpur.

3. The prosecution case is that when Sultan Bux maternal uncle of appellants was not present in his house, his mechanic Muhammad Nawaz deceased went in his house and started making love with Msr. Nawaz were seen by Khurshid and Jamal, Kafia, wife of Sultan Bux, but they appellants and Abdur Rehman acquitted co‑accused. They first caught hold of the deceased Muhammad Nawaz and injured him with sofas hold they caught hold of Mst. Ka6a P. W. 11 and gave her as many as 12 injuries with blunt weapon simple in nature. This occurrence was allegedly seen by Mohammed Sharif P. W. 9, brother of Mst. Kafia, Mst.Niamat P. W. 10 and Mst. Naseem Akhtar P. W. 12. At that time Karim Bakhsh P. W. 13 came in the haveli. He was asked to bring Muhammad Umar P. W. 14, who on reaching the place of occurrence found Khurshid and Jamal appellants inside the haveli and Muhammad found Muhammad Umar Nawaz deceased lying injured in a serious condition. Lambardar P. W. 14 inquired from Jamal and Khurshid appellant about the incident and they confessed before him that they love with their mechanic inside the haveli injured both of them making her rave and sudden provocation. Sultan Bux was sent for from under than. Mohammed Nawaz, in injured condition, was removed to the hospital through Allah Ditta P. W. 8. Mohammed Umar P.W 14 instead of going to lodge the report went in search of a Police Officer known to him to guide him to guide him properly for it was a question of his reputation. He him t g found Havaldar Mr. Rashid P. W. 17 at 11‑45 a. m. in the Court premises tan. Mohammed Umar P. W. 14 made statement Exh. P. A which at recorded by Mohammed Rashid in which Mohammed Umar stated as hat the two accused/ appellants Khurshid and Jamal had informed him hen they found Mohammed Nawaz deceased making love with their hat maternal aunt Mst. Kafia, on the same cot within the, haveli they lost their at self‑control and gave blows only to Mohammed Nawaz.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses. Out of whom, Mohammed Sharif P. W. 9, Mst. Salamat Msr, Kafia P. W. 11, Mst. Naseem P. W. 12 and Karim Bakhsh P. W. 1 P. W, 13 are the eye ‑witnesses of the occurrence.

4.The learned trial Court has disbelieved the two eyewitnesses Muhammad Sharif P. W. 9 and Mst. Salamat Bibi P. W. 10. Mst. namely, Mar P W. 12 has not supported the prosecution case. The Naseem Akhtar Court has based the conviction on the statement of Msr. Kafia learned an injured witness supported by the extra‑judicial confession and P.W.1 the recoveries of the weapon of offence from the appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has contend that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in any case, the sentence awarded to the appellants is excessive one.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants I find that a P, W, 11 who is related to the appellants has implicated the appellants. She is an injured witness. The appellants were Previously appellants supported by the recovery of the weep her. She is supported of offence from the appellants and as such no exception can be taken to the conv1c‑from the appellants under the circumstances. The appellants were arres ted of the appellants the trial, which concluded on, 18th June, 1965, they remained in jail during the trial which concluded on 18^th June 1966. They were allowed bail by this Court on l0th August, 1966. The deceased being a servant of Mohammed Umar. Lambardar P.W.14 was seen making love with Mst. Kafia, wife of his master, at a.m. in the house of his master. Keeping in view all these circumstances, 1 am of the opinion that the agony of the trial coupled with the sentence already served out by the appellants is sufficient meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly. The appellants are on bail bond, shall stand discharged. With this modification the appeal is dismissed.

S. G. D. Order accordingly,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.