1983 PLP 331 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑While refusing leave to the appellant against his conviction under section 302, P. P. C. leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the sentence of death awarded to him was the appropriate sentence on the facts of the case. With no background or even trace of enmity or ill‑will between the parties, the appellant was passing in front of the house of deceased on 19‑6‑1976 when he noticed a dog on the path and addressing remarked "Hat Muawiya". Aroused by this provocative remark the deceased and his brother Akhtar Hussain (P. W. 8) peremptorily intervened asking the appellant not to talk such rot. Exchange of words followed. The, appellant returned from his house close by with a revolver and fired two shots ‑killing the deceased. The conviction of the appellant being beyond review, the only question is whether sentence merits interference. The remark of the appellant was provocative is beyond dispute. The peremptory interference of the deceased in the background of his belief and position (Imam of the village mosque and belonging to Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamat) was justified. There followed an exchange of hot words. What were those words has not been brought on record in full. It is however beyond doubt that the exchange of words so agitated and worked up ‑the petitioner that he went to his house brought out the licensed revolver and fired two shots at the deceased. The suddenness of the affair, the lack of preparation and deliberation, the, agitated state of his mind, and absence of malice afore thought are factor which stand out. In the case of Sikander v. The State (13 LD1966SC555) an observation was made that‑ "A sudden quarrel imports provocation on both sides, and unless it is artificially raised as an excuse for making a predetermined fatal attack, the responsibility for the provocation and the raising of tempers, which necessarily follows a quarrel is, under the law, to be shared by the parties equally. When the quarrel is followed by a direct clash, the Courts cannot fail, as they have done in this case, to take note of the fact that thereby a great heat is imported into the affair. A crime committed in hot blood, for the raising of which the victim is equally responsible with the offender, is not to be visited with the same punish ment that the law reserves for deliberate offences of the same kind, committed in the cold blood, that is with malice aforethought." We find that on the facts of the case the appellant's case was one of sentence of life imprisonment. As adequate compensation has not been awarded to victim's heir while accepting the appeal against the sentence and reducing it to life imprisonment we enhance the fine to Rs. 10,000 or in default, 5 years R. I. and a compensation of Rs. 1,000 under section 544‑A or in default six months' R. I. The fine and compensation amount on recovery shall be paid to‑ the heirs of the deceased. In computing the period of imprisonment benefit of section 382‑B, Cr. P. C. shall be extended to the appellant. Appeal accepted.