Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 132 and 107 of 1985, decided on 6th October, 1986.
‑‑‑Ss. 302, 300, Exception I & 304, Part II‑‑Grave and sudden provocation‑‑Offence, alteration of‑‑Deceased killed by accused on account of grave and sudden provocation as well as to save family honour‑‑Conviction of accused under S. 302, P.P.C. altered to that under S. 304, Part II, P.P.C. in circumstances.
‑‑‑S. 304, Part II‑‑Sentence, quantum of‑‑Deceased killed by accused on account of grave and sudden provocation as well as to save family honour‑‑Sentence of 4 years' R.I., held, would meet ends of justice, in circumstances.‑‑[Sentence].
Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Appellant.
Makhdoom Abdul Wali for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th October, 1986.
This appeal has been filed by appellant Muhammad Boota son of Rehmatullah Arain against his conviction and sentence under section 302, P.P.C. by judgment, dated 29‑9‑1985 of the learned Sessions Judge, Badin, in Sessions Case No. 54 of 1982. Apart from the appellant, there were two other co‑accused namely Arshad Ali son of Rehmat Ullah Arain (brother of the appellant) and Haji Abdul Ghaffar son of Haji Sirajuddin. The two co‑accused have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge but convicting the appellant, the trial Court has sentenced him to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default of payment to undergo three years R.I. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Makhdoom Abdul Wali, learned counsel for the State.
2. The appeal is being pressed only on the ground of sentence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence on record it is evident that the appellant had killed deceased Shaukat Ali on account of grave and sudden provocation. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, in the circumstances, sentence of imprisonment for life was not called for and at the most the appellant could have been sentenced to two or three years imprisonment. Mr. Makhdoom Abdul Wali, learned counsel for the State, does not oppose the plea on behalf of the appellant for reduction of sentence, as according to him also the murder had taken place on account of grave and sudden provocation.
3. According to the evidence on record, the deceased Shaukat Ali was on illicit terms with the real sister of the appellant and on the night when the incident took place, the deceased had come out of the house of the appellant, where his sister also resided and apparently the appellant saw the deceased coming out of the room where the sister of the appellant resided and immediately following the deceased, the appellant caused the hatchet blows killing the deceased on the spot. The offence having been committed, in these circumstances was, therefore, on account of grave and sudden provocation and ends of justice will be met if the sentence is reduced.
4. The conviction of the appellant is altered from section 302, P.P.C. to section 304, Part II, P.P.C. and his sentence is reduced to four years R.I. The sentence of fine is set aside. The appellant will be entitled to the concession under section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. as extended to him by the learned trial Court.
Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1985 is disposed of accordingly.
S.G.D./M‑52/K Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer