2018 P Cr. L J 1071
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Abdullah Baloch, JJ
KHUDA -E-NOOR and another ---Appellants
Versus
The STATE---Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 2016 and Criminal Jail Appeal No. 47 of 2016, decided on 2nd
October, 2017.
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 302(b) & 34--- Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence ---Ocular
account supported by medical evidence ---Prosecution case was that the accused persons
along with co- accused persons assaul ted upon the complainant party, made firing, due to
which daughter of complainant died at the spot ---Motive behind the occurrence was that
complainant had obtained divorce from the father of deceased, which fact annoyed the accused party ---Ocular account w as furnished by the complainant and her two daughters,
which was further supported by the disclosure of co- accused about the murder of deceased ---
Complainant lodged FIR by means of filing application under S. 22- A, Cr.P.C.---
Complainant had explained the delay caused in registration of FIR ---Complainant specifically
nominated the accused persons and their arrival in her house ---Complainant had stated that
she became unconscious and after becoming normal she found her daughter in pool of blood---Statement of complainant showed that at the time of occurrence all the witnesses and
accused persons were present at the place of occurrence and murder of deceased was result of their common intention ---Sister of deceased, twelve years old, appeared as a witness and
furnished the ocular account ---Presence of said witness was shown in the statement of
complainant and was not denied by the defence ---Said witness attributed specific role and
commission of offence to the accused persons ---Statement of said witness with reg ard to
firing of two bullets on deceased was confirmed from the postmortem report ---Daughter of
complainant/witness appeared and confirmed the presence of accused persons equipped with arms at the place of occurrence---Record showed that statements of all three eyewitnesses corroborated each other in respect of presence of accused persons at the place of occurrence, the manner in which occurrence took place and the motive behind the occurrence ---
Testimonies of said eye -witnesses were not only trustworthy, but deserved appreciation---
Ocular account of prosecution case was further supported by disclosure of co- accused
recorded before the Investigating Officer, wherein he had admitted his guilt ---Disclosure of
said co -accused showed that he came to know that de ceased had illicit relationship with a
person and he discussed the same with his father ---Accused/father of co -accused directed the
co-accused to kill his sister as the matter was that of honour ---Co -accused admitted the
commission of offence along with hi s father and brother ---Co -accused, though made a
unsuccessful attempt to deviate from his disclosure while recording his statement on oath under S. 340(2), Cr.P.C., wherein he specifically admitted the commission of offence by himself to save his father fr om the conviction--- Said confession of co- accused was not only
in conflict with his disclosure, but also negated its plea taken during the course of trial ---
Circumstances established that prosecution had succeeded to prove its case against the
accused pers ons without shadow of any doubt ---Appeal against conviction and sentence was
dismissed in circumstances.
PLD 2001 SC 96 and Gul Muhammad v. The State PLD 2012 Bal. 22 rel.
(b) Qanun- e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) ---
----Art. 40---Disclosure of accused ---Admissib ility---Disclosure coupled with discovery of
new facts was admissible under Art. 40 of Qanun- e-Shahadat, 1984.
Muhammad Iqbal Gola for Appellants (in Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2016).
Muhammad Khair Mengal for Appellants (in Criminal Jail Appeal No. 47 of 2016).
Muhammad Yahya Baloch, D.P.G. for the State.
Muhammad Ibrahim Lehri for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2017.
JUDGMENT
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. ---This common judgment disposes of Criminal Appeal
No.172 of 2016 filed by the appellant K huda -e-Noor Son of Abdul Wahid and Crl. Jail
Appeal No.47 of 2016 filed by the pauper appellant Tariq Aziz son of Khuda -e-Noor through
Superintendent Central Prison Mach, against the judgment dated 26th April 2016 (hereinafter
referred as, "the impugned judgment") passed by learned Sessions Judge Mastung (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court"), whereby the appellants were convicted under section 302(b), 34, P.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life, with compensation of Rs.200,000/ - (Two Hun dred Thousand) each, which in case of recovery were directed to
be paid to the legal heirs of deceased Ms. Samreen as envisaged under section 544- A,
Cr.P.C., whereas in default thereof the appellants shall further suffer one year's S.I., with the benefit o f section 382- B, Cr.P.C.
2. Facts of the case are that on 16th June 2014 the complainant Mst. Bibi Zubaida
daughter Haji Abdul Ghafoor, lodged FIR No.19/2014 at Levies Thana Dasht Mastung, under section 302, 34, P.P.C., stating therein that about 25 years ago her marriage was solemnized with Khuda -e-Noor and out of wedlock she born seven children i.e. Bibi Saeeda, Tariq Aziz,
Irfan Aziz, Bibi Amir Aziz, Bibi Samreen, Bibi Amreen and Bibi Afsa. It is further averred in the FIR that after 13 -years of marriage , her husband Khuda -e-Noor divorced her, whereafter
she started residing in Quetta with her parents along with four children and she used to work as labourer in the houses of others for the purpose of earning livelihood of her children. It is also averred that prior to one month of incident her children were brought them to Dasht, where her son Irfan Aziz was working as Buzgar at a tube -well. On 28th April 2014 at about
8.30 a.m. she was present at her home while her daughters Amreen, Hafsa and Samreen were
present in another room, in the meanwhile accused Khuda -e -Noor, Mita Khan, Abdul
Hameed sons of Abdul Wahid, Tariq Aziz, Amir Aziz sons of Khuda -e-Noor equipped with
fire arms came there, Tariq Aziz locked her in a room, after a while she heard noise of gunshots and became unconscious. When she regained conscious, saw her daughter Samreen,
who was lying in the pool of blood. Her other children told that their father Khuda - e-Noor
along with other pull out her from the room and thereafter opened fire upon Samreen and
committed her murder. The motive behind the occurrence was that she obtained divorce from the father of deceased, which fact annoyed the accused party.
3. After registration of FIR, PW -9 Muhammad Naeem Shahwani, Naib- Tehsildar
Dasht/I.O. carried out the investigation of the case, who earlier went to Dar -ul-Aman Quetta
and recorded the fard- e-bayan of complainant, on the basis whereof the FIR was lodged.
During investigation he recorded the statements of witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C.; arrested the accused Khuda -e-Noor: obtained the custody of complainant Mst. Zubaida from
Dar ul -Aman; exhumed the dead body of deceased through Doctor obtaining permission from
Judicial Magistrate Dasht and got conducted the postmortem of deceased; he also ins pected
the site of occurrence, whereafter he returned the custody of complainant to Dar -ul-Aman; on
completion of investigation to the extent of Khuda -e-Noor remanded him to judicial custody.
On 24th September arrested another nominated accused Tariq Aziz and he was investigated.
On completion of investigation challan was submitted in the trial Court.
4. At the trial, the nominated accused Mitta Khan, Abdul Hameed and Amir Aziz were
not arrested, thus proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. were carri ed out and they
were declared as proclaimed offenders.
5. Charge was framed and read over to both accused and the accused Tariq Aziz pleaded
his guilt through application, thus notice was issued to him under section 243, Cr.P.C., who
once again pleaded his guilt, thus in the interest of justice and keeping in view the provisions
of section 265 -F(2), Cr.P.C., the prosecution evidence was recorded and the prosecution has
produced the evidence of nine witnesses. On close of prosecution side, the appellants wer e
examined under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein once again the appellant Tariq Aziz pleaded his guilt and also repeated such assertions in his oath statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. While the appellant Khuda -e--Noor denied the prosecution allegations and took the plea of
alibi. He also produced DW -1 Ghous Bakhsh and DW -2 Dawood Khan in his defence. On
conclusion of trial and after hearing the arguments, the trial Court convicted and sentenced both the accused as mentioned above in para No.1, whereafter instant appeals have been
filed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant Khuda -e-Noor contended that the impugned
judgment suffers from misreading and non- reading of evidence; that on the basis of mala fide
intention, the complainant nominated the appell ant for commission of evidence; that there is
unexplained delay of one month in registration of FIR which was registered after consultation; that the co -accused Tariq Aziz has pleaded his guilt before the Court and clearly
stated that he was the only perso n, who committed the murder of his sister as there was
exchange of hard words between them, therefore, this fact was enough for deciding the matter; that the co -accused Tariq Aziz has committed the murder of his sister and the
appellant Khuda -e-Noor has no concern, but the learned trial Court failed to understand this
very important aspect of the case; that there is no incriminating evidence available against the appellant and he is liable to be acquitted of the charge; that no specific role has been attrib uted to the appellant that he has committed the murder of his daughter; that the appellant
was just involved by the complainant as a revenge of her divorce; that there are material illegalities and irregularities in the impugned judgment, which is liable to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel for the pauper appellant Tariq Aziz contended that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case, with confidence inspiring evidence against the
appellant; that there are glaring contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that the ocular evidence has not supported by medical evidence; that t he FIR was lodged after
deliberation and consultation with delay of one month; that the mere admission of guilt of appellant in his statement under section 340(2), Cr.P.C. is result of inducement, coercion by the prosecution, which is not admissible under the law and no supporting evidence available by the prosecution against the appellant; that the impugned judgment is result of misreading, non-reading and misappreciation of evidence by the learned trial Court, as such, the
impugned judgment is liable to b e set aside.
8. Conversely, the learned DPG assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant
strongly opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and contended that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appell ants through confidence
inspiring evidence; that the co -accused Tariq Aziz has admitted its guilt for commission of
offence and with furtherance of common intention both the appellants have committed the
murder of deceased; that the ocular evidence was sup ported by the medical exhumation
report; that the co -accused Tariq Aziz has further admitted his guilt by recording his
disclosure before the prosecution witnesses during the cross of investigation; that the
prosecution has produced sufficient incriminating evidence against the appellants and the
learned trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence had rightly convicted the appellants for commission of offence.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties with their valuable assistance and perused
the record minutely. The record reveals that the complainant PW -2 Bibi Zubaida has filed an
application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C. before the Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge, Kalat at
Mastung, wherein stated that on 28th April 2014, she was present in her house. When the
following persons namely 1. Khuda -e-Noor, 2. Mitha Khan, 3. Abdul Hameed, 4. Tariq Aziz,
5. Amir Aziz arrived over there, her daughters Amreen, Hafsa and Samreen were also present there and playing in the second room while accused Tariq closed the door of the room where
the complainant was sitting and thereafter she heard some shots of firing and become unconscious whereafter she came on conscious and saw her daughter Samreen in pool of blood. On quarry, her other daughters informed her that ac cused No.1 Khuda - e-Noor and
others killed their sister by means of firing.
10. Record further reveals that on such application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C. of
complainant an inquiry was conducted by orders of the justice of the peace through concerned SHO, whereafter on the directions of learned justice of Peace, the FIR was lodged
on 16th June, 2014 and trial was commenced, initially by the Court of Special Judge Anti -
Terrorism, Khuzdar at Mastung, however, thereafter the jurisdiction of ATC was assailed b y
the appellants before this Court and this Court too dismissed the revision of the appellants/petitioners vide judgment dated 25th May, 2015 in Criminal Revision No.32/2015 and thereafter both the orders were assailed by the appellants before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Criminal Appeal No.337/2015 whereby the Hon'ble apex Court vide its judgment dated 11th November 2015 set aside both the judgments passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mastung and High Court of Balochistan and declared that the case of appellants to be tried by the Court of ordinary jurisdiction, as such, thereafter the case was transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Mastung and the trial was commenced and charge was framed both the appellants categorically pleaded not gui lty and claimed trial.
11. To substantiate its case. The prosecution produced the following witnesses:
PW-1 Dr. Ali Mardan, Police Surgeon Sundeman Provincial Hospital, Quetta who
conducted the exhumation and post -mortem of the dead body of deceased Bibi Samreen
daughter of Khuda -e-Noor on 26th June, 2014 in presence of Judicial Magistrate, Dasht and
Tehsildar along with Levies Force in the graveyard of Dasht pingove. The complainant also
pointed out the grave of the deceased Bibi Samreen. They took the de ad body and carried out
post-mortem at the spot along with Lady Doctor and found the following bullets entrance
would on her body:
1. Entrance of bullet on left lat. Side of Neck.
2. Entrance of bullet on left lat. Chest and exist on Rt. lat. chest.
And her cause of death was declared as multi organ damage the sever bleeding caused
by fire -arm and homicidal. Despite lengthy cross -examination his statement was unshaken.
12. PW-2 is Mst. Zubaida she is the complainant of the case, in her statement she almost
reiterated the contents of the Fard -e-Bayan Ex.P/2 -A and categorically stated that on the fatal
day at 8.00 a.m. Khuda -e-Noor (appellant), Mitha Khan and Abdul Hameed arrived at her
home Dasht and called my daughter Bibi Samreen (deceased) during the cour se she heard
noise of two shots while tried to come out from the room, however, her sons Tariq Aziz (appellant) and Amir Aziz closed her in the room and due to hue and cry, she became unconscious while regaining conscious she saw her daughter in pool of bl ood, while she was
informed by her other daughters Amreen and Hafsa that Khuda -e-Noor, Mitha Khan and
Abdul Hameed murdered Bibi Samreen and fled away. She stated the motive behind the dispute was her divorce, which she took from appellant Khuda -e-Noor 12 years ago and as
conspiracy whereof the accused persons killed her daughter. In cross -examination, she stated
that no fateha of deceased Samreen was taken by his father and brothers, however, she herself taken fateha for one month and thereafter she shifted to Dar -ul-Aman, Quetta to take shelter
of peace and thereafter filed application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C. before the justice of
peace for registration of FIR. She further stated in cross -examination that initially one month
after occurrence she visited to Tehsildar Dasht lodge report and voluntarily stated that on non registration of FIR by the Levies Thana Dasht, she proceeded to the Court. Despite lengthy cross -examination; the defence was failed to jolt or shake her statement on material counts.
13. The next witness is PW -3 Muhammad Shafi Levies Sepoy he is witness of the
exhumation of the dead body of deceased from the graveyard in presence of Judicial Magistrate, Dasht and thereafter her body was examined by the Doctor, which was identified by her mother/complainant PW -2.
14. PW-4 is Abdul Hassan Levies Resaldar he deposed that on 29th September 2014 he
was present at Levies Thana Dasht where during the course of investigation, the accused/appellant Tariq Aziz recorded his disclosure, wherein stated that due to illicit and
objectionable relationship of his sister Mst. Samreen (deceased) with one Atta Ullah, on hearing of such informations, he consulted his father Khuda -e-Noor, who was residing
separately and his father directed him to kill his sister Bibi Samreen as the matter is of our
honour, as such, he alongwith his brother and father came to the house of his mother and separated his other sisters in the next room while taken out the deceased Bibi Samreen and by means of firing killed her and his disclosure was recorded and produced as Ex.P/5- A. The
witness further deposed that the accused has further made pointation of place of occurrence, which was also reduced in writing vide Ex.P/4- B. Despite lengthy cross -examination, nothing
came out in favou r of the defence.
15. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant Tariq Aziz admitted in his disclosure
that after consultation with his father he along with his father (appellant Khuda -e-Noor) and
brother came in the house of his mother Bibi Zubaida and committed the murder of his sister.
16. PW-5 is Ali Ahmed Levies Sepoy he stated that on 26th June 2014, the complainant
Bibi Zubaida pointed out a Haveli where the murder of deceased took place.
17. PW-6 is Bibi Hafsa daughter of Khuda -e-Noor (appel lant) age 12 years after quarry
by the learned trial Court whether she is able and understand to record her statement after
putting some question, she satisfied the Court being able to record her statement. She deposed that from very beginning she is residing along with her sisters with her mother in Quetta. One year ago her brothers Tariq Aziz and Amir Aziz and Irfan arrived at Quetta and taken them to Dasht to the house of Irfan and they are living with him, on the fatal day at 8:30 Khuda -e-
Noor, Mithal K han, Abdul Hameed, Tariq Aziz and Amir Aziz arrived there where all three
sisters present in one room while my mother was in the next room. Tariq called Samreen, who came out from the room then they also came out behind them she and her sister Amreen tried to stop Samreen, but saw that Khuda -e-Noor and Tariq made one fire each on Samreen
and Tariq Aziz closed the door of my mother and thereafter accused persons fled away from the scene of occurrence, however, certain minor discrepancies have been noticed in her cross -
examination, which are not material to discarded her entire statement on material count.
18. PW-7 is Bibi Saeeda daughter of Khuda -e-Noor (appellant), she stated that her mother
and her sisters are living with her brother in the house of her brother Irfan. He is working as
Buzgar at tube well. Since she had not visited her mother and sister for longtime, as such, casually on the day of occurrence, she proceeded to the house of Irfan Aziz to meet her mother, at the distance of about 20 to 30 minut es from her house, as she reached there she
heard some shots of firing while reached in the house, the accused persons came out from the house she identified them as Mitha Khan, Abdul Hameed, Khuda -e-Noor, Tariq Aziz and
Amir Aziz equipped with arms. Khuda -e-Noor and Tariq Aziz having one pistol each with
them. When she entered into the house she saw her sister Samreen in pool of blood and her mother and sisters gathered with the dead body thereafter she came to know that her sister was killed by the accuse d persons on the allegation of . Despite lengthy cross -examination
her statement was not shaken, however, during the course of cross -examination, her
statement was confronted by with regard to her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. and ascertain improvem ents have been arisen from her statement, but the same are not fatal to
discredit her statement as whole on material counts.
19. PW-8 is Najeebullah Khan, Judicial Magistrate, in his presence on 26th June 2014
dead body of the deceased Bibi Samreen was exh umated from the graveyard and Doctor Ali
Mardan Mengal carried out for postmortem. He attested and issued the certificate Ex.P/8 -A.
20. PW-9 is Muhammad Naeem Shahwani, Naib Tehsildar/ Investigation Officer. He
deposed all the steps counted by him during c ourse of investigation. Despite lengthy cross -
examination his statement was not shaken.
21. After thorough examination of the statements of the prosecution, we have reached to
the conclusion that the prosecution case rest upon ocular evidence, medical evidence and circumstantial evidence.
22. It is pertinent to discuss the medical evidence first with regard to the unnatural death
of deceased Bibi Samreen, in this regard, the prosecution produced PW -1 Doctor Ali Mardan
Mengal, who conducted the exhumation pr oceeding of deceased on 26th June 2014 in
presence of Judicial Magistrate Dasht, Levies personnel and mother of deceased/complainant
Bibi Zubaida and found the entrance of two bullet injuries on her body and declared her death caused by firearm and homicid al, as such, the death of deceased was stated to be unnatural.
The exhumation and post -mortem report of the deceased was supported the version of ocular
account as stated by the PW -2 Bibi Zubaida/ complainant, PW -6 Bibi Hafsa, PW -7 Bibi
Saeeda and further supported by disclosure of appellant/Tariq Aziz in presence of PW -4
Abdul Hassan and exhumation and attestation certificate issued by PW -8 Judicial Magistrate
Najeebullah. The evidence of all above witnesses confirms the unnatural death of deceased Bibi Sa mreen.
23. Now the question arises that who was responsible for committing the murder of
deceased Bibi Samreen, in this regard, the prosecution produced the complainant Bibi
Zubaida, who lodged FIR by means of filing application under section 22- A, Cr.P.C. with
justice of the peace Mastung against the appellants and co- accused persons and explained the
delay so caused in registration of FIR. In her statement, she specifically nominated the
appellants Khuda -e-Noor, Mitha Khan and Abdul Hameed and their arrival in her home and
thereafter on bearing firing shots, she was not allowed by her sons appellants Tariq Aziz and
Amir Aziz to come out from the room and save murder of deceased while she was closed in the room and further specifically stated that she had b ecome unconscious and while regaining
in conscious found her daughter Bibi Samreen in pool of blood and her other daughters Amreen and Hafsa told her Khuda -e-Noor, Mitha Khan and Abdul Hameed after killing
Samreen fled away. From the statement of complaina nt, it came on the record that at the time
of occurrence all above stated persons including appellants Khuda -e-Noor and Tariq Aziz
were present at the place of occurrence and murder of deceased Samreen was resulted with furtherance of their common intention.
24. The next important eyewitness of the occurrence is PW -6 Bibi Hafsa. She was of 12
years being innocent recorded her statement, wherein on the day of occurrence at 08:30 Khuda -e-Noor (appellant), Mitha Khan, Abdul Hameed, Tariq Aziz (appellant) and A mir
Aziz came over there and Triq Aziz called Samreen as she came out from the room they tried to stop her, but saw that appellant Khuda -e-Noor and Tariq Aziz made fire each on deceased
Samreen and also closed their mother in the room. The presence of this witness was also
shown in the statement of PW -2 Bibi Zubaida/complainant and nowhere the presence of this
witness was denied by the defence, again the witness attributed specific role and commission of offence by the appellant Khuda -e-Noor and Tariq Aziz and her statement with regard to
firing of two bullets on the person of Bibi Samreen was also confirmed from the postmortem/exhumation report carried out by the PW Doctor Ali Mardan.
25. The next important ocular witness is PW -7 Bibi Saeeda. She is also daughter of
complainant and appellant Khuda -e-Nazar. She in her statement deposed that she was
separately residing with her mother and sisters and for long time she did not meet her mother and sisters. On the fatal day, she casually came over there in the house to her mother, reaching nearby there she heard firing shots. When reached in the home saw that the accused persons Mitha Khan, Abdul Hameed, Khuda -e-Noor, Tariq Aziz and Amir Aziz equipped
with arms. Appellant Khuda -e-Noor and Appellant Tariq Aziz havi ng one pistol each. While
entering inside the house she saw her body of Samreen in pool of blood and her mother and sisters were gathered with the body of her sister Samreen. This witness again deposed the
presence of appellant and accused persons equipped with arm at the place of occurrence
thereafter she came to know that her sister was killed on the allegation of "Siya Kari".
26. The statements of all three eyewitnesses corroborated each other on all material
counts i.e. presence of accused persons at the place of occurrence, the manner in which
occurrence took place and the motive behind the occurrence. It is to be appreciated that in our male dominated society, especially in tribal society the womenfolk would not come forward against the male and specif ically against their blood relatives like father, brother, cousins and
tribal elders, but the complainant and her daughters at the risk of their lives came forward and brought the law in motion, their testimonies not only trustworthy, but deserve to be appreciated to encourage their wisdom to bring reforms in our society. Our view got support
from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in PLD 2001 SC 96, which reads as under:
"The defence taken by the appellant that he committed the offence under the impulse
of "Ghairat" under grave and sudden provocation, has not been proved by him by any
cogent evidence, therefore, it cannot be given undue importance. After examining the
prosecution case and defence version in juxtaposition, we find that the prosecution
has proved its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt through reliable
witnesses, who had no motive of their own to charge the appellant falsely and mere
relationship of the wi tnesses with the deceased would not render their testimony
unreliable. It appears that defence plea was cooked up at the trial in order to create dent in the prosecution version. Legally and morally speaking, no body has any right nor can anybody be allowe d to take law in his own hands to take the life of anybody
in the name of "Ghariat". Neither the law of the land nor religion permits so- called
honour killing which amounts to murder (Qatl -i-amd) simpliciter. Such iniquitous and
vile act is violative of fu ndamental right as enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution
of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which provides that no person would be deprived of life or liberty except in accordance with law and any custom or usage in that respect is void under Article 8(1 ) of the Constitution.
We are further fortified the judgment of this Court case titled Gul Muhammad v. The State PLD 2012 Balochistan 22, which reads as under:
"It is true that, in the rural areas of Balochistan and especially in Naseerabad division, the p eople do not swallow such kind of insult, touching the honour of their
womenfolk and usually commit murder of alleged siyahkar in order to vindicate and rehabilitate the family honour, but it is equally true that no license can be granted to anyone to take the law of the land in his hands and start executing the culprits himself
instead of taking them to the Courts of law. The murder based on Ghairat does not furnish a valid mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser sentence. The killing of innocent people, specially the women on the pretext of siyahkari is absolutely un-Islamic, illegal and unconstitutional. It is worth mentioning that the believers of Islam are not even allowed to divorce them, without establishing their accusation. We profess our love for Islam, but ignore clear Qur'anic injunctions regarding the rights
of women. The Holy Qur'an in Sura XXIV (NUUR) Verses 4 says:
"And those who launch A charge against chaste women And produce not four witnesses, (To support their allegation) ---Flog the m with eight stripes; And reject
their evidence Ever after: for such men Are wicked transgressors; ---
In this regard, it would also be advantageous to reproduce Hadith 837 Book 48 (Sahih
Bukhari), which speaks as under --
"Narrated Ibn Abbas: Hilal bin Umai ya accused his wife before the Prophet of
committing illegal sexual intercourse with Sharik bin Sahma. 'The Prophet 'said, Produce a proof or else you would get the legal punishment (by being lashed) on your back. "Hilal said, "O Allah's Apostle! If anyone of us saw another man over his wife,
would he go to search for a proof "The Prophet went on saying, Produce a proof or else you would get the legal punishment (by being lashed) on your back." The Prophet then mentioned the narration of Lian (as in the Hol y-Book). (Surat -al-Nur: 24)
The crime of siyahkari is increasing in this part of the Province and innocent girls are being killed under the worst tradition of siyahkari or karokari. False and frivolous allegations are levelled against the innocent girls an d they are never heard. They are
being treated as cattle, which is also violation of the fundamental rights, enshrined in the Constitution. In order to prevent such crimes, Courts of law should take judicial notice, while trying such heinous crimes.
27. The ocular account of prosecution case is further supported by circumstantial
evidence i.e. disclosure of appellant Tariq Aziz recorded before the I.O. in presence of PW -4,
wherein the appellant Triq Aziz has admitted his guilt and perusal of his disclosure Ex.P/4 -A,
wherein he disclosed that his brother Amir Aziz told him that the movement of one Attaullah was found nearby their home and he has some illicit and unfair relationship with our sister Bibi Samreen. When he came to know that he discussed the same with his father appellant Khuda -e-Noor as there are separately residing and his father Khuda- e-Noor directed him to
kill his sister Samreen this is matter of our hounour and prior to one day of occurrence, he
along with his brother Amir Aziz and father Khu da-e-Noor with consultation of each other
came on the fatal day to the house of her mother Bibi Zubaida and separated their other sisters and closed them in another room while taken out Bibi Samreen from the house and by means of firing killed her.
28. The perusal of above disclosure of the appellant Tariq Aziz coupled with discovery of
new facts i.e. on coming to know the objectionable relations of her sister with one Attaullah, he has further consulted his father and brother and thereafter made preplan and with furtherance of common intention arrived at the place of occurrence armed with weapons managed to separate the mother and the other sisters and closed them in a room and thereafter taken out Samreen from the house and killed her, as such, the disclos ure coupled with
discovery of new facts is admissible under the law as per Article 40 of Qanun- e-Shahadat,
1984.
29. Again the version of ocular account proved by the disclosure of appellant Tariq Aziz,
wherein he admitted the commission of offence along w ith his father appellant Khuda -e-Noor
and brother Amir Aziz. Though the appellant Tariq Aziz made a unsuccessful attempt to
deviate from his disclosure and while regarding his statement on oath under section 340(2), Cr.P.C, wherein specifically admitted th e commission of offence by his own with the plea
that on 28th April 2014 at 08:30 her sister exchange harsh words with him and he became emotional he fired a bullet on her head and she was died. The such statement and new plea of the appellant Tariq Aziz r eflect that to admit the commission of offence on his head and to
save his father from the conviction of said offence. Be that as it may, such confession of appellant Tariq Aziz is not only in conflict of his disclosure, but also negate its plea taken
during the course of trial hereby almost the commission of offence was denied by him,
wherein almost the question put to the prosecution witnesses in cross -examination by his
counsel that
۔� � ث� � �� ئزر
��زا� � ىزر�� رق� � � � � � �"
� � � ۔� � د�� � �� ىزر�� رق� �
"۔� � � جرم� �� � ىزر�� رق� � � � �
30. Even otherwise, his statement on oath is also in conflict of his replying during the
course of charge, wherein he answered that "plead not guilty and claimed trial and thereafter
filed an application under section 242, Cr.P.C., wherein plead guilty, but notice under section 243, Cr.P.C. was given to him and it was decided that case is of heinous in nature, as such, evidence to be noticed.
31. The case laws referred and r elied by the appellants are distinguishable and not helpful
to the appellants.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the firm view that the prosecution has
succeeded to prove its case against the appellants without shadow of any doubt and the
learned trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence had rightly found guilty, the
appellants for commission of offence and accordingly awarded sentence to the appellants in accordance with law.
The learned counsel for the appellants were unable to point out any material
misreading and non -reading, misappreciation, illegality and irregularities in the impugned
judgment which warrants for interference by this Court, as such, the appeals filed by the appellants being devoid of merits are hereby dismissed.
JK/1 56/Bal. Appeals dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.