1988 PLP 365 (SCMR)

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Sher Mohammad complainant has filed this petition against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 18-10-1981 whereby it altered the conviction of Ghulam Muhammad respondent from section 302, PPC to section 304 II, PPC and reduced his sentence from death to imprisonment already undergone by him.

2. The motive for the murder is stated to be that the accused respondent suspected Mir Baz (deceased) having illicit connection with his (accused-respondent's) wife.

3. According to the prosecution version at 1 P.M. on 18-6-1977 when Mir Baz (deceased) was ploughing his land Ghulam Muhammad accused-respondent came out from a sugarcane crop armed with a hatchet and raising lalkara inflicted two blows on the neck of the deceased. On hearing noise Sher Muhammad (PW.7), Langar Khan (PW.8) and one Shamir came running to the spot but the accused escaped and ran away alongwith the hatchet which was subsequently recovered from him and was found to have been stained with human blood.

4. At the trial the prosecution case was supported by the above noted two eye-witnesses whose testimony was corroborated by the recovery of the blood-stained hatchet; medical evidence and the evidence of motive. The respondent admitted having killed the deceased and owned up the blood-stained hatchet as his own but gave a different version of the occurrence which runs as follows:- "On the day of occurrence I was in my fields to the East of the place of occurrence at a distance of about 11 killas. I was cutting branches from the trees with hatchet P.5. My wife had to bring meals for me from my dera, Bhan Cheekianwala. She did not arrive with the meals till about 10/11 a.m. I started back towards the Bhan to check up as to why she had not brought my meals. When 1 was passing on the path which is situated near the place of occurrence towards its West, I saw my wife and Mir Baz deceased in compromising position in the corner of the sugarcane crop of the complainant. I lost my self-control and on grave and sudden provocation, I killed Mir Baz deceased by giving him hatchet blows. Sher Muhammad, Shamir and Langar Khan PWs were not near the spot. I myself went to the police station and informed the S.H.O. about the occurrence. I produced my blood-stained hatchet there. It was I, who took the police to the spot and till then the complainant party had not contacted the police. The SHO twisted the actual facts in complicity with Rab Nawaz son of Sardar Ali Awan of Jauharabad . " In paragraph No.7 of the impugned judgment the learned High Court has observed that: "The important question to be determined is, as to which version is to be believed. For that matter, we have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the State." But we find that no reasons have been recorded by the learned High Court in paragraph 11 for believing the defence version and discussion on this aspect of the case is very brief and sketchy, with no attempt to justify the conclusion arrived at by it to alter the finding given by the Trial Court. It is apparent from a reading of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment which are also reproduced for facility of reference:- 11 We have compared the prosecution case with the statement of the appellant and have no hesitation in holding that the appellant's statement is more authentic. The appellant very boldly, frankly, nevertheless, honestly admitted the murder, gave a detailed explanation why he did so. His statement inspires confidence. We find no reason to reject it.

12. We accept the plea of grave and sudden provocation, alter the conviction from section

302. PPC to section 304 Part II PPC and reduce the sentence to one already undergone by the appellant. The sentence of fine is remitted. The death sentence is not confirmed. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case." As such, we had to refer to the judgment of the learned trial Court to see why and on what grounds it had rejected the same plea. But we were surprised to find that the discussion of the learned trial Court is equally brief. In this view of the matter we feel that the matter needs further consideration. Since remanding the case to High Court for recording a fresh judgment, with more detailed reasons, would result in further delay, we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to enable this Court to consider the question itself. Leave is, therefore, granted for the said purpose. Let bailable warrants be issued against the respondent in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties in the like amount returnable to the Assistant Commissioner, Sargodha. S.Q./S-94/S Leave granted.