1987 PLP 727 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondent (in Crl.P.L.A. No. 496 of 1981). Date of hearing: 2nd February, 1987. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Cr.P.L.A. No. 460 of 1981 is directed against the judgment of .the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 26‑10‑1981 whereby Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1981 was decided and death sentence, awarded to the accused /petitioner Tariq Nisar by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur vide his order, dated 24‑8‑1980, was reduced to imprisonment for life, while rest of the impugned order, dated 24‑8‑1980 was maintained. Cr.P.L.A. No. 496 of 1981 is also directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26‑10‑1981 whereby Zakir Hassan Abid, petitioner seeks leave to appeal, praying for enhancement of the sentence awarded to Tariq Nisar, respondent No.1. This order will dispose both the above‑mentioned criminal petitions for leave to appeal.

2. Deceased Zakir Sibtain was married to Mst. Iffat Rukhsana, daughter of Dr. Muhammad Nisar, resident of Model Town, 'B' Bahawalpur 8 months prior to the present occurrence. Accused Tariq Nisar, petitioner in Cr.P.L.A. 460 of 1981, real brother of Mst. Iffat Rukhsana, was not happy over this marriage and in consequence of that the two were not on talking terms with each other. On the eventful day i.e. 17‑1‑1980 at Maghribwela Zakir Sibtain deceased was present in his Pan‑Cigarette shop in Chowk Bazar, Sama Satta when the accused/ petitioner Tariq Nisar came and attacked the deceased with a razor and slashed his neck and Zakir Sibtain fell down in his Kokha. After causing the injury to Zakir the accused /petitioner tried to escape but the eye‑witnesses, present near the Kokha, chased him and caught hold of him, alongwith the weapon of offence. The deceased was carried to the hospital where he died before any medical aid could be rendered to him.

3. At the trial the prosecution produced Zakir Hassain Abid P.W.10 and Syed Muhammad Mumtaz P.W.11 as eye‑witnesses of the occurrence. They supported the prosecution case. Their testimony is unblemished, and is supported by the medical evidence which described the injuries on the body of deceased as under:‑ (i)One incised wound extending from thyroid cartilage upwards to right lobule of ear measuring 6" x 1 ", and (ii) Multiple abrasions spread over right shoulder, upper arm and fore‑arm Injury (i) caused by sharp‑edged weapon was found fatal and in the opinion of the doctor, was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On the other hand, the case of the defence is that on the fateful day the accused /petitioner was called by the deceased on the pretext of making a settlement; when the accused/ petitioner alighted from the train at Sama Satta, the deceased and his elder brother got him arrested under section 120 of the Railway Act, and later on, got him released on bail and kept him in their custody; that apprehending danger to his life, the accused/petitioner wanted to escape but the deceased and his brother" overpowered him, and, therefore, in order to save himself the accused/ petitioner picked up a knife lying in the Khokha and gave a blow to the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the defence version finds support from the. fact that a case under section 120 of Railway Act was registered against the accused/ petitioner and in this behalf he had produced Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Khan as D.W.2 who had examined him to ascertain if he was under the influence of liquor and medical report Exh. D. C . would reveal that the allegation was false; that the incident took place in the thickly populated Bazar of Sama Satta but none of the shopkeepers, from the vicinity of the spot, was produced to support the prosecution case and the two eye‑witnesses produced, are closely related to the deceased.

5. We have gone through the evidence and the judgments of the Courts below and find that the arguments of the learned counsel are flimsy and not in consonance with the surrounding circumstances of the case. The learned High Court Judges have given maximum benefit to the accused/ petitioner by reducing his sentence from death to imprisonment for life. Thus, we find no merit in Cr.P.L.A. No. 460 of 1981. Leave refused. Petition dismissed.

6. Cr.P.L.A. No. 496 of 1981 is based on the ground that the reduction of the sentence of Tariq Nisar, respondent No. 1 is not well‑founded for the reason that it was a pre‑meditated, calculated and cold‑blooded murder; that it is well‑settled in law that the ordinary sentence for murder is the death sentence and reduction in sentence would be in very rare case where the accused has acted on the spur of the moment in the heat of passion; that the principle of family honour has wrongly been applied by the learned High Court Judges to the facts of the present case which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.

7. We do not agree with the learned counsel for the complainant/ petitioner because it is in the evidence that the sister of the accused/1 respondent No.1 was enticed away by the deceased whom he married later on. This would have caused anguish and rancour to Tariq Nisar) the accused/ respondent No.

1. We, therefore, refuse to grant leave; This petition is also dismissed. M.I. /T‑2/S Petitions dismissed.