1976 PLP 138 (SCMR)
KARAMAT ALI SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 138 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑ S. 302 read with S. 300. Exception I‑‑Murder‑Provocation First Information Report lodged within five hours‑Incident witnessed by no less than four witnesses present at spot in connection with a marriage ceremony in deceased's family‑Two of such witnesses independent persons having no reason to falsely implicate accused Ocular evidence corroborated by surrender of accused with crime pistol and m itching of empties with pistol‑‑Accused not disputing Incident but pleading commission of offence on account of "ghairat" Accused, however, mentioning story of provocation due to "ghairat" for first time in Sessions Court‑Evidence falsifying accused's relationship with woman allegedly in liaison with deceased and accused refusing to produce any evidence in defence or to prove such relationship ‑‑ Accused's statement regarding provocative circumstances, in circumstances, held, rightly refused to be accepted by High Court in entirety‑High Court, however, held, rightly felt that circumstances existed giving some provocation to accused though such provocation was neither grave nor sudden and case not covered by Exception I to S. 300‑Suflicierrt reason, held, existed, in circumstances, for commutation of death sentence to imprisonment for life. Grave and sudden provocation. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KARAMAT ALI SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 138 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 138 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑ S. 302 read with S. 300. Exception I‑‑Murder‑Provocation First Information Report lodged within five hours‑Incident witnessed by no less than four witnesses present at spot in connection with a marriage ceremony in deceased's family‑Two of such witnesses independent persons having no reason to falsely implicate accused Ocular evidence corroborated by surrender of accused with crime pistol and m itching of empties with pistol‑‑Accused not disputing Incident but pleading commission of offence on account of "ghairat" Accused, however, mentioning story of provocation due to "ghairat" for first time in Sessions Court‑Evidence falsifying accused's relationship with woman allegedly in liaison with deceased and accused refusing to produce any evidence in defence or to prove such relationship ‑‑ Accused's statement regarding provocative circumstances, in circumstances, held, rightly refused to be accepted by High Court in entirety‑High Court, however, held, rightly felt that circumstances existed giving some provocation to accused though such provocation was neither grave nor sudden and case not covered by Exception I to S. 300‑Suflicierrt reason, held, existed, in circumstances, for commutation of death sentence to imprisonment for life. Grave and sudden provocation. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 138 (SCMR) (KARAMAT ALI SHAH‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- B. A, Saleemi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim. Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner (in Petition No. 85 of 1975).
- Abid Hassan Minto. Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in Petition No. 96 of 1975).
- Nemo for Respondent (in Petition No. 96 of 1975).
- Date of hearing : 14th November 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated the 20th of January 1975, in Criminal Appeal No. 641 of 1973/Murder Reference No. 4 of 1974). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑ ‑‑‑ S. 302 read with S.
300. Exception I‑‑[Murder]‑Provocation First Information Report lodged within five hours‑Incident witnessed by no less than four witnesses present at spot in connection with a marriage ceremony in deceased's family‑Two of such witnesses independent persons having no reason to falsely implicate accused Ocular evidence corroborated by surrender of accused with crime pistol and m itching of empties with pistol‑‑Accused not disputing Incident but pleading commission of offence on account of "ghairat" Accused, however, mentioning story of provocation due to "ghairat" for first time in Sessions Court‑Evidence falsifying accused's relationship with woman allegedly in liaison with deceased and accused refusing to produce any evidence in defence or to prove such relationship ‑‑ Accused's statement regarding provocative circumstances, in circumstances, held, rightly refused to be accepted by High Court in entirety‑High Court, however, held, rightly felt that circumstances existed giving some provocation to accused though such provocation was neither grave nor sudden and case not covered by Exception I to S. 300‑Suflicierrt reason, held, existed, in circumstances, for commutation of death sentence to imprisonment for life. [ Grave and sudden provocation]. Nemo for the State (in Petition No. 85 of 1975).
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDDIN AHMED, J.‑These two petitions have been heard together and age being disposed of under one order. Petition No. 85 of 1975 is by Karamat Ali Shah, and it is from an order of the High Court maintaining his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and commuting the death sentence passed on him to imprisonment for life. Petition No. 96 of 1975 is by complainant Syed Haider Ali Shah asking for enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment for life passed upon Karamat Ali Shah to sentence of death. The incident in which Amanat Ali Shah was shot at with a pistol and killed took place on the 9th of May, 1972, at 11.‑30 p.m. in the Baithak of complainant Syed Haider Ali Shah situated in Chak No. 51/RB, Anandpur, District Sheikhupura. A first information report was lodged at 4‑30 a.m. on the 10th of May, 1972, I .e within five hours of the occurrence. The incident was witnessed by no less than four witnesses who were present at the spot in connection with the marriage ceremony of the son of Nazir Shah. This Nazir Shah is son of sister of the mother of complainant and deceased Amanat Ali Shah. Of the fair eye- witnesses two of them, namely, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Poota are independent persons and had no reason to falsely implicate petitioner Karamat Ali Shah. The ocular evidence has been amply corroborate by the surrender of the petitioner with the crime pistol and the matching of the empties recovered from the spot with the pistol. In fact, the petitioner has not disputed the incident but has pleaded that he had killed the deceased on account of "Ghairat". The petitioner stated, in course ref his examination under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Court that Mst Bashiran wife of the petitioners uncles son had eloped with the deceased about 10 days before the occurrence. While coming from the side of the houses of his uncles Jar Shah and Akbar Shah in order to proceed to his house he saw Mst. Bashiran and deceased sling together at the bank of the water‑course. Both Mst. Bashiran and the deceased saw the petitioner and ran away: The deceased ran to the Baikhak of complainant Syed Haider Ali Shah the petitioner went after the deceased and having been over‑whelm by the resentment which lye entertained against the illicit relations between the deceased and Mst. Bashrian host self control and fired at the deceased, The petitioner stated that he made the same statement before the police and produced the crime pistol voluntarily before the police and that he committed the murder out of Ghairat. It may be mentioned bare that the story about Mst. Bashiran and the deceased standing together at the bank of the watercourse and their miming away on seeing the petitioner and the petitioner following the deceased and firing at him in the Baithak of the complainant were all mentioned for the first time before the Court of Session.. Before the police he only mentioned about the abduction of Mst. Bashiran by Amanat deceased without, however disclosing that she was the wife of Faqir Hussain Shah, a cousin of the petitioner. The evidence of C.W. Akbar Alai Patwari has disclosed that the husband of Mst. Bashiran was not a son of the uncle of the petitioner. It appears at page 42 of the printed paper book of the High Court that the petitioner refused to produce any evidence in defence to prove his relationship with the said Faqir Husssain shah. In these circumstance, the learned Judges of the High court were right in not accepting the aforeasied statement of the petitioner in its entirety. The learned Judges, however, felt that there were circumstances in the case which might have given some provocation to the petitioner, but such provocation was neither grave nor sudden and it did not bring the case within Exception No. 1 of section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and this was the reason that the sentence of death passed upon the petitioner was reduced to a sentence of imprisonment for life. We are of the opinion that the petitioner has been rightly convicted and sentenced. As regards Petition No. 96 of 1975 we are of the opinion that the reason given by the learned Judges of the High Court for reducing the sentence is not altogether unreasonable and we, therefore, do not think that the sentence passed upon the petitioner should be enhanced. Both the petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.