Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 32 of 1983, decided on 23rd February, 1984.

-- S. 304 (I)-Sentence, quantum of--Accused caused injuries proving fatal on grave and sudden provocation on account of family honour-Sentence of 5 years' R. I., held, not inadequate, in circumstances--Enhancement of sentence declined. [Sentence -Grave and sudden provocation].

1975 S C M R 51; 1976 S C M R 138; P L D 1976 S C 241;1984 S C M R 552; 1981 S C 187; P L D 1961 Lah. 24; P L D 1965 S C 366.; P L D 1966 Lah. 104; 1975 Pesh. 548; P L D 1977 S C 154; 1979 S C M R 48 and 1981 Pesh. 752 ref.

Sharafuddin Ada for Petitioner.

Samiullah Qureshi for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Zawar Hussain Jeffery A. A. G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1984.

This Criminal Revision application under sections 435, 438 and 439 read with section 561-A, Cr. P. C. is directed against the judgment, dated 25th June, 1983 of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, whereby, he convicted the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Bahadur and Sikandar) of an, offence punishable under section 304 (1), P. P. C. and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and also pay fine Rs. 500 to legal heirs of Manzoor deceased, or suffer R. I. for six months more in default.

2. Both the respondents Bahadur and Sikandar were tried on the charge of an offence punishable under section 302/34, P. P. C. in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1981. The learned trial Judge held them guilty of the offence punishable under section 304 (1), P. P. C. and awarded on them the sentence mentioned above. In this Revision Application, the applicant Muhammad Hayat, who was the complainant in the case, seeks enhance ment of the sentence.

3. The accusation against both the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is that they had made murderous assault on their sister Mst. Aisha and one Manzoor son of Ghulam Qadir, at one and the same time, in front of their house near Daharki in District Sukkur, on 13th December, 1983 at about 8-30 or 9-00 p.m. The crime was registered for an offence punishable under section 307/34. Both the victims could not withstand the injuries caused to them and they died later and the nature of the offence was converted to that under section 302/34, P. P. C. They were tried for that offence. The trial Judge came to the conclusion that it was a case of -assault on grave and sudden provocation and held the appellant guilty of offence under section 304 (1), P. P. C. and sentenced them to suffer R. I. for four years and pay fine Rs. 500 or suffer R. I. 6 months more in default, and were allowed benefit of their detention as undertrial prisoners under section 382-B, Cr. P. C.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the sentence awarded on the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is inadequate in view of the gravity of the offence and they deserve maximum sentence prescribed for the offence viz. imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years. He has placed reliance on the following cases:-

(i) 1975 S C M R 51;

(ii) 1976 S C M R 138;

(iii) P L D 1976 S C 241;

(iv) 1984 S C M R 552;

(v) 1981 S C M R 187;

5. On the other hand, the learned, counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has contended that the learned trial Judge held that it was case of assault on sudden and grave provocation and, in the circumstances of the case, the sentences awarded on the respondents is more than adequate. He has cited several authorities in support of his submission. The authorities cited by him are:-

(i) P L D 1961 Lah. 24;

(ii) P L D 1965 S C 366;

(iii) P L D 1966 Lah. 104;

(iv) P L D 1975 Pesh. 548.

(v) P L D 1977 S C 154;

(vi) 1979 S C M R 48 and

(vii) P L D 1981 Pesh. 752.

6. The learned Asstt. A. G. appearing for the State has stated that the sentence awarded on the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is adequate and there is no case for its enhancement.

7. In the cases at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, the sentence of death awarded for an offence punishable under section 302, P. P. C. was altered to that imprisonment for life, and they are not relevant for the purpose of this Revision Application. As regards the cases at Serial Nos. 4 and 5 cited by him, sentence of seven years was awarded for an offence punishable under section 304 (1), P. P. C. but in both the cases there was no question of family honour like this case and they were cases of right of private defence. They also are not applicable to the question to be considered in this Revision Application. But the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent relate to the offence of sudden and grave provocation on family honour of the nature of the offence, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been held guilty of. Except the one case at Serial No. 2 sentence in other cases for an offence punishable under section 304 (1), P. P. C. did not exceed five years. Only in the case reported in P L D 1965 S C 366, sentence of imprisonment for 10 years was awarded. Evidently, the consensus of the superior Courts on the quantum of sentence for an offence punishable under section 304 (1), P. P. C. in the case of sudden and grave provocation on family honour has been the sentence not exceeding 5 years. In this case, for the sentence awarded on the appellants is not so inadequate as to call for its enhancement. The Revision Application is dismissed accordingly.

S. G. D. Revision declined.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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