1986 PLP 2022 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑Muhammad Amin, petitioner, caused injuries to Liaqat Ali P.W.11 with his hatchet following a verbal altercation in which abuses were exchanged between the said Liaqat Ali on the one side and Muhammad Amin and his brother Muhammad Yasin (petitioner) on the other. Muhammad Shafi father of Muhammad Amin and his brother Muhammad Yasin intervened and took his sons Muhammad Amin to their Haveli. As they were sitting on the Thara in front of their Haveli the elder brother of Liaqat Ali P.W.1, namely, Muhammad Aslam rushed towards them, on becoming aware of the injuries caused to his brother. He remonstrated with the accused as to why they had attacked and injured Liaqat Ali. Whereupon Muhammad Amin (petitioner) attacked him also and struck him with his hatchet which was still in his hands and killed him. For all this, the learned trial Court convicted Muhammad Amin under section 302 P.P.C. and sentenced him to death and this conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal by Muhammad Amin. Khawaja Sultan Ahmad, learned counsel for Muhammad Amin has, inter alia, argued that Muhammad Aslam deceased was a hot tempered and irritable person and drew our attention to the statement of Bashir Ahmad P.W.11 in cross‑examination in this connection, namely:‑ "I am a real 'Mamoon' of the injured Liaqat and Aslam deceased. It is correct that the deceased Aslam in a quarrel with me had struck a piece of wood on my head. It is correct that I had even lodged a report 'with the police about it. I could not speak for 3 to 4 days for that injury." According to the learned counsel, Muhammad Aslam had rushed towards Muhammad Amin petitioner after hearing about the injuries caused to his brother by Muhammad Amin with his hatchet and considering his violent nature the manner in which he must have protested to Muhammad Amin can easily be imagined. In these circumstances, Muhammad Amin, petitioner who was already greatly inflamed on account of the earlier incident could not but have been further inflamed by the conduct of Muhammad Aslam. In these moments of passion he lost ail self‑control and attacked Muhammad 'Adam with his hatchet which he was still holding in his hands and killed him. The conduct of Muhammad Aslam deceased in these circumstances could, according to the learned counsel of the petitioner, provide a mitigating circumstance, in adjudging the question of sentence to be awarded to Muhammad Amin petitioner. The question raised is a delicate one. Leave is granted for considering whether the Courts below had taken into consideration all the relevant circumstances while awarding the sentence of death in' this case. M.I. Leave granted.