1980 P Cr (PLP)

P L D 1977 S C 153 ref. Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin for A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 10th October, 1979. Hussain, son of Mtrza khan Marri, resident of village Nawab Gul Mohammad Laghari, Taluka Sinjhoro of District Sanghar, has been con victed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sanghar, under section 304 (I), P. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.500 or in default undergo R. I. for 4 months more. He has appealed through Jail and was also called from Jail to be heard in person. He has stated in memorandum of his appeal as well as in person that Mst. Dur Bibi was his wife and Jumo (deceased) was married to his sister. Mst. Dur Bibi was residing with the appellant in his house whereas Jumo was resident of village Laiq Pir. It was at about midnight when he returned to his house and found Jumo and Dur Bibi sleeping together in compromising position on a mat. He seeing them in such a position lost his self‑control and under grave and sudden provocation went to the house of Azeem which was adjacent to his house and picked up his gun and fired at both of them who died as a result of gunshot injuries. Then came P. Ws. Azeem Khan, Sher Khan, Saifal Karim Dad and Nabi Bux, whom he informed that he had killed both of them due to "Ghairat" having seen them in compromising position. He pleads grave and sudden provocation and prays for acquittal.

2. The medical evidence shows that both of the deceased have died as a result of injuries caused by a fire‑arm and were antimortem. The position taken up by the appellant has been accepted by the trial Court. The only point for consideration is if sentence awarded to him under section 304 (1), P. P. C. was excessive.

3. As the appellant's case falls under first exception .to section .300, P. P. C. because he has killed his wife and her paramour when he was deprived of his self‑control. The sentence to be awarded must have refer ence to its' gravity under sudden and grave provocation. The provocation obviously in this case, was very grave and sudden because he found both of the deceased sleeping in compromising position which was disgraceful and degrading for him and his family as well. Therefore, his‑act is clearly such which requires different yardstick than that of ordinary criminal acts. In the case reported in P L D 1977 S C 153, a sentence of five years has been held good enough to meet ends of justice. In the instant case, the appellant had a greater justification for his act. In my opinion, the ends of justice will be served adequately if the sentence awarded by the trial Court is reduced to five years' rigorous imprisonment.

4. For the foregoing reasons the conviction is upheld and the appeal is accepted to an extent that the sentence is reduced to five years' rigorous imprisonment only. Order accordingly.