1969 PLP 144 (SCMR)

‑Supreme Court does not interfere with a legal sentence. Malik Saeed Hasan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Razaq, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing : 1st November 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑This is a petition by the mother of one Hafiz Karim Bakbsh who has been convicted under section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of his wife and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. A learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan has upheld his conviction and sentence although the entire prosecution evidence was doubted. The conviction has been upheld both by the Sessions Court as well as the High Court only upon the basis of the statement of the accused himself in which he admitted having killed his wife with a hatchet but claimed to have done so under grave and sudden provocation on seeing her in a compromising position with one Goma Khan in the jungle. Upon this statement it was felt that only a case of section 304, Part I; P. P. C. was made out but he was given a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment as it was considered that he had acted in a very brutal manner by inflicting as many as 14 injuries on the deceased and even amputating both her feet above the ankle‑joints. The learned counsel appearing in support of the petition has pressed this appeal only on the ground of sentence. According to him in such circumstances the law considered only a very slight punishment of a few months to be sufficient meet the ends of justice. In support of this contention he has relied upon various decisions of the High Court. It is true that in the facts and circumstances of the cases cited a sentence of a few months or two or three years was considered sufficient to meet the ends of justice but as pointed out in these cases themselves no hard and fast rule can be laid down that the sentenco in such circum stances should not exceed a given period'. Each case has to be determined on the basis of its own facts. In none of the cases cited had the accused acted with the brutality evidenced by the accused in the present case. In the circumstances we are not in a position to say that the sentence imposed in the present case is either illegal or excessive. This Court has consistently held that it does not interfere with a legal sentence. We are unable, therefore, to help the petitioner in the present case. This petition is accordingly, dismissed, On merits without taking into account the fact that it is also barred by some 86 days. Leave refused.