1987 PLP 832 (SCMR)

‑‑‑S. 302/34‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Sentence, enhancement of‑ ‑Accused convicted under S. 302, P.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life‑‑Motive for crime as admitted by prosecution was illicit liaison between deceased and wife of accused‑‑No case having been made out for enhancement of sentence where extreme penalty under law could be imposed on the accused, leave to appeal refused. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑ on‑Record (Absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1987. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑ Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Azram, accused /respondents in Cr.P.S.L.A. No. 118/R of 1982 were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, for committing the murder of Ghulam Rasul. They were convicted under section 302, P . P . C . read with section 34, P . P . C . and sentenced toy death and a fine of Rs.5,000 each. On appeal to the High Court the learned Judges acquitted Muhammad Azram and altered the death sentence, awarded to Muhammad Akram, to imprisonment for life, maintaining the sentence of fine, vide the impugned judgment dated 4‑4‑1982.

2. By Cr.P.S.L.A. No.181 of 1982 Muhammad Akram, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the same impugned judgment on the ground' that the eye‑witnesses having not been believed qua Muhammad Azram, who was acquitted by the learned High Court, the conviction of petitioner cannot, therefore, be maintained on the same evidence without material corroboration of ocular testimony; that the prosecution case is that the deceased Ghulam Rasul was suspected of having illicit relations with his own sister‑in‑law i.e. the wife of Muhammad Akram the accused petitioner and a fight had taken place at night between the deceased and the accused /petitioner, and, therefore, if at all the accused/ petitioner committed the crime, it was under grave and sudden provocation, and, hence, he was entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to section 300, P.P.C. Reliance was placed on P L D 1973 S C 321; PLD 1975 S C 588 and P L D 1977 S C 1.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Zaman Ali P.W.6 and Muhammad Yaqub P.W.7 saw the accused going after Ghulam Rasul deceased or the morning of 5‑9‑1976 at about 10 a.m. towards the Dera of Bakhshia near Karumb Usman. Both the accused Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Azram, armed with .12 bore guns, raised Lalkara and threatened the deceased Ghulam Rasul and Muhammad Bashir P.W.8, who was accompanying the deceased, that they will not be allowed to escape Ghulam Rasul deceased and Bashir P.W.8 ran for safety when Muhammad Akram accused/ petitioner fired hitting Ghulam Rasul on the back and neck. However, Ghulam Rasul ran ahead and sat down in the meantime Muhammad Azram acquitted/ accused reached near him and hit Ghulam Rasul deceased with butt‑end of his gun, on his arms which brought Ghulam Rasul down to the ground whereupon Muhammad Azram fired hitting the deceased on the left leg. After this, both the accused ran away. The deceased succumbed to his injuries soon thereafter. Zaman Ali P.W.6 proceeded to the Police Station. He met A.S.I. Muhammad Aslam P.W.10 near the bus‑stand, village Daultala and lodged the report Exh.P.B.

4. Motive for the crime is that the deceased was suspected of having illicit relations with the wife of Muhammad Akram accused. On the night previous to the day of occurrence, the deceased and accused Akram had quarrelled over this, and, hence, this murder.

5. The learned trial Court believed the ocular testimony of the three eye‑witnesses. The medical evidence is also corroborating the prosecution case that the deceased had 8 wounds, of which 6 were caused by fire‑arm and two were abrasions caused by blunt weapon. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were considered sufficient to cause death of the deceased.

6. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that there is consistent charge against the accused/ petitioner Muhammad Akram. He has been rightly considered to be responsible for committing the murder of Ghulam Rasul deceased, and, therefore, there is no reason available for us to interfere with the finding of the learned High Court. Hence, we refuse to grant leave in Cr. P.S.L.A. No.181 of 1982. Petition dismissed.

7. As regards Cr.P.S.L.A.No.118 of 1982, we find that no case is made out for enhancement of sentence where the extreme penalty under the law could be imposed on the accused /respondent Muhammad Akram because motive for the crime as admitted by the prosecution was illicit liaison between the deceased and wife of the accused /respondent. We, therefore, find no merit in this petition, and refuse to grant leave. Petition dismissed. M.I. /W‑3/S Petition dismissed.