1987 PLP 268 (SCMR)

Kh. Sarfraz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 10th December, 1986.

2. The occurrence took place on 27‑4‑1986 at 3‑00 p.m. on the occasion of the Valima meal of a nephew of Nazir Hussain. The petitioner and his co‑accused who belonged to a different village had come to partake in the meal from the side of the bride who was related to them. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner and his co‑accused came to attend the meal with the pre‑concerted design of killing Mumtaz Hussain who was suspected of carrying on an intrigue with the wife of one of the co‑accused. Thus, in pursuance of their design, after the meal was over, one of the accused held Mumtaz Hussain deceased in a Japhha while the petitioner attacked him with a dagger, which he had already brought with him. When Nazir Hussain deceased and Bashir Hussain tried to intervene the petitioner gave dagger blows to them as well. Both Mumtaz Hussain and Nazir Hussain died at the spot.

3. The petitioner did not dispute that he had caused the death of Nazir Hussain and Mumtaz Hussain and injured Bashir Hussain. He stated that when the meal was over he heard the alarm raised by his nephew's wife Mst. Zahida Parveen. He saw that Mumtaz Hussain deceased had caught hold of her arm and was forcing her to dance with him. He felt insulted and under grave and sudden provocation attacked Mumtaz Hussain deceased. On this Nazir Hussain and Bashir Hussain attacked him with Sotas. In order to defend himself he gave some knife blows to them also.

4. The learned Judges in the High Court did not accept the plea of self‑defence or of grave and sudden provocation. They noticed that the petitioner had no injuries on his person at the time of his arrest. They observed that the petitioner had come to the Valima meal with a dagger concealed on his person. They were of the opinion that his conduct in bringing a dagger to the party was indicative of the fact that he had come there with the intention to commit murder.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed us only to the question of sentence. He points out that the learned Judges have ignored the fact that the petitioner had brought his family along with him to the Valima party. Had he come there with the intention of killing the hosts he would have at least left his family behind in his own village. Further, the petitioner was a guest from the side of the bride. Even if the petitioner had any feeling of hostility towards Mumtaz Hussain or his father he would not have chosen this occasion to exhibit them. As regards his arming himself with a dagger, he stated that the petitioner had come to the party from a different village. It was not unusual for villagers to carry some weapon when travelling to other villages for self‑protection.

6. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner do require further consideration. We would accordingly grant leave to appeal to the petitioner or the question of his sentences. M. I. Leave granted.