Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 52 of 1970, decided on 9th April 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 15th January 1970, in Crimi nal Appeal No. 446 of 1967).

.Ss. 302 & 300, Exception Grave and sudden provocation‑Accused opening fire at and killing deceased at a public place when deceased was sitting there with .some persons including his father and aunt‑Accused admitting commission of murder but pleading grave and sudden provocation on seeing his sister‑in‑law in company with deceased‑ Time of occurrence and .surrounding circumstances including presence of other people, held, definitely negatived any reasonable cause for arousing suspicion that deceased' and petitioner's sister‑in‑law were there together to promote immoral liaison‑Plea of grave and sudden provocation, held, rightly rejected by High Court.

Aziz Ahmad Chaudhary, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 9th April 1970.

In this petition for special leave to appeal, the petitioner Muhammad Shah has questioned his conviction under section 302, P. P. C. and his sentence of transportation for life there under for the murder of one, Noora, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur and confirmed by the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore.

The motive for the murder was that the deceased Noora was suspected of having developed an illicit relationship with Mst., Mandan, wife of the petitioner's brother.

According to the prosecution case, the petitioner, accom panied by one, Zafar Abbas who was his co‑accused but acquitted by the trial Judge, came to the oven of one, Shera, near the house of Gama Machhi and opened fire at Noora who was sitting there along with some persons, including his father P. W. Muhammad and his paternal aunt P. W. Mst. Fatima. Noora was killed on the spot and Mst. Fatima also sustained a fire‑arm injury which was allegedly caused to her by Zafar Abbas mentioned above.

Muhammad and Fatima gave ocular evidence in the case which was supplemented by one, Manak, P. W. 11, allegedly another eye‑witness who was disbelieved by the trial Judge. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. at the trial, admitted that he had killed the deceased and also caused a fire‑arm injury to Mst. Fatima, but he pleaded that it was under grave and sudden provocation because he had seen his sister‑in‑law Mst. Mandan at the time with the deceased and the aforesaid Mst. Fatima.

In view of the petitioner's admission of his guilt, the short question which arose in the case was whether he was entitled to the plea of grave and sudden provocation. The Courts below after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case have come to the conclusion that no case of grave and sudden provocation was made out. According to the learned Judges of the High Court, even if the statement of the petitioner were to be accepted in toto, the presence of Mst. Mandan at the spot at that time where Mst. Fatima and the deceased also happened to be present, could not have fur nished a reasonable basis for the petitioner to be suddenly and gravely provoked to cause the death of the deceased in spite of the lurking suspicion that he may have had with regard to his objectionable relations with his sister‑in‑law. The time of the occurrence and the surrounding circumstances including the presence of Mst. Fatima and other people at the spot at that time, definitely negative any reasonable cause for arousing a suspicion that the deceased and Mst. Mandan were there together to promote their immoral liaison between themselves. According to the evidence, a few days prior to the occurrence, the petitioner had given shoe‑beating to Muhammad P. W. and to the brother of the deceased on account of the same grudge and it seems that he was all along in a violent mood to wreak vengeance on the deceased also.

On the evidence and circumstances of the case the plea of the petitioner was rightly rejected and his conviction under section 302, P. P. C. was correctly maintained. He has been given a lesser sentence of transportation for life in view of the circumstance that the conduct of the deceased in carrying on with the petitioner's sister‑in‑law must have hurt his sense of honour.

.

The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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