P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

Complainant Ramzan is maternal uncle of the appellant. He has four brothers. Deceased Sehat was his daughter and was married to Ayub one of the brothers of the appellant. They lived with the appellant Haroon son of Ramzan (complainant) had been ailing, and the complainant wanted to take him to Nawabshah for treatment. As his wife was to go with him, he wanted to bring Sehat to put her incharge of his other children in his absence. With that object in view be visited the village of the appel lant. Ahmed who is son of the complainant and Kaiser who is his nephew also went with him, as they had to recover money from Usman the father of the appellant. The complainant did not find his daughter in the house of the appellant. On inquiry, the appellant told him that she had gone to the house of his' brother Isso as the latter's wife had given birth to a child. As the complainant was getting ready to go to the village of Isso, which is about a mile from that of the appellant, the latter informed him that on the previous day he had gone to `wangar' of Mitho Sehto where he learnt that Sehat was on terms of illicit intimacy with one Arab Mari and that in the evening he went to the house of Isso where he met the deceased. She accompanied him to the village. On the way he asked her if it was a fact that she was on terms of illicit intimacy with Arab Mari and she replied in the affirmative. His information having been confirmed by the admission of the woman, he told her that she was not fit to remain in their house, and that he would take her to the house of her parents. On the way, on the bank of Nasrat Canal, he throttled her to death and then threw her body in the canal. On getting this information from the appellant, Ramzan went to Nasrat canal, and leaving Ahmed and Kaiser there to search for the dead body, he went and informed Rustam Khan who referred him to police, Ramzan then went to Daur Police Station and there lodged a report on 12‑8‑58 at 8 a.m. After recording the report, H. C. Bahadur Chand repaired to the village of Ghulam Hyder Shah where the appellant lived. He searched for him but there was no trace. He stayed there for the night. On 13‑8‑58, the appellant himself appeared before the Head Constable who arrested him after some interro gation. The appellant led him, and the mashir to the batik of Nasrat Canal and showed them the place where the deceased was done to death. The H. C. examined Kaiser, Ahmed and tracker Khair Muhammad. Thereafter came S H.O. Abdul Razzak, who verified the investigation done by the Head Constable. The appellant was then sent to the 1st class Magistrate Nawabshah for recording his confession. The dead body of Sehat was recovered from Nasrat Canal at Shahpur Chakar a place about 15 miles from the place where she was done to death. The medical officer was called to conduct post‑mortem examination on the spot. After completing the investigation, the police challaned the appellant with the above result. In his statement in the Court of the committing Magistrate, the appellant denied having killed the deceased. He denied having pointed out the scene of offence to the police. As for the confession, he stated that he made it because he was beaten by the police and his womenfolk were disgraced. When questioned why the witnesses were giving evidence against him he replied `I do not know'. He was asked if he had to add anything to which he replied that he would give further statement in the Sessions Court. In the Sessions Court, he stuck to his statement made earlier and further stated that he had made no confession before the complainant and his son Ahmed. There is no doubt that Sehat died of violence. The evidence of the medical officer shows clearly that the dead body was identified. He found spots of ecchymosis which shows that the skin was intact. Ramzan has stated that the body was of his daughter Sehat. The medical officer corroborates this evidence by saying that Ramzan identified this body in his presence. The learned Judge has dealt with this aspect of the case and we agree with him that tha prosecution have been able to establish that the body which was found at Shahpur Chakar was of Mst. Sehat. That Mst. Sehat was throttled to death is proved by the evidence of this medical officer who conducted the post‑mortem examination. The medical officer found four spots of ecchymosis on the right side of the neck and three spots of ecchymosis on the left side of the neck. In his opinion, these spots had been caused by the tips of fingers and were antimortem. On internal examination, the medical officer found trachia fractured; it had collapsed ; the lungs were congested. From the external and internal examination of the deceased, the medical officer became of the opinion that the death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling, and this throttling, according to him, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is thus established that Sehat died of violence. To connect the appellant with the guilt, the prosecution have examined Ramzan, and Ahmed. They also rely upon the extra judicial confession made to them and the judicial confession made by the appellant before the Mukhtiarkar and 1st class Magistrate, Nawabshah: We have examined this evidence and we are satisfied that the prosecution have been able to establish that it was the appellant who did Sehat to death. Ramzan has stated that he had been to the house of the appellant in order to take Sehat to his house as he wanted to leave her incharge of his children as he had to take his ailing son Haroon to Nawabshah for treatment along with his wife. Not finding Sehat in the house of the appellant, he inquired, and the appellant first told that she had gone to Isso who was living about a mile from there as according to him Isso's wife had delivered a child. As he was getting ready to go to the house of Isso, the appellant came out with the truth and told Ramzan that he had throttled her to death and thrown her dead body in Nasrat Canal as she had admitted before him that she was on terms of illicit intimacy with Arab Mari, and thus confirming the information about the intimacy which he had received on the previous day. On getting this information from the appellant, Ramzan went to Nasrat Canal where he left his son Ahmed and Kaiser to search for the body and he himself went and reported the matter to the Zemindar Rustom Khan who referred him to police. Ramzan stands corroborated by the first information report. This report contains all the details of the confession made by the appellant before Ramzan. As said above, Ramzan is maternal uncle of the appellant and there is nothing on record to show that he had any reason to swear away the life of the appellant. Then there is the judicial confession of the appellant. In this judicial confession, the appellant has admitted having throttled Sehat to death. In this confession the appellant has made a statement similar to that which he had earlier made to Ramzan. He has stated that after throwing the dead body in the canal he went back to kill the enemy apparently referring to Arab Mari but he could not find him out. In this confession, he has admitted having confessed before Ramzan. The Magis trate who recorded the confession has been examined and his evidence shows that in his view the appellant made the confession voluntarily. We have examined this confession in the light of the circumstances on record and we are satisfied that it is both voluntary and true. The most significant fact is that before the body was recovered, the appellant had stated before Ramzan that he had throttled the deceased and thrown her in the canal. Till then this fact was not known to anyone, and hence no one could have put such a statement in the mouth of the appellant as there was always a risk of discovery of facts quite contra dictory to those disclosed in the confession. The evidence of Ramzan corroborates the judicial confession and there is also the evidence of the medical officer corroborating it, for the latter has stated on oath that he found spots of ecchymosis on both sides of the neck and also found trachia broken and in a collapsed condition. He also found the lungs congested. Thus we are satisfied that the prosecution have established that‑the violence of which Sehat died was caused by the appellant. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that in view of the circumstances mentioned in the confession in which Sehat was done to death, the offence committed by the appellant would fall under section 304, P. P. C. We are inclined to accept this contention. In the confession, the appellant has stated that when he asked the deceased whether she was on terms of illicit intimacy with Arab Mari, she replied in the affirmative, and this admission highly provoked him and it was on account of `Ghairat' that he killed the deceased. This statement as said above is not proved to l be false, and according to us, it was sufficient to give grave provocation. We do not find much difference between the provocation caused by the admission on the part of the woman of illicit intimacy, and that caused by the sight of the woman being in compromising position with a paramour. In the confession, the appellant has further stated that after killing Sehat, he was on the look out for Arab Mari her paramour, but he did not find him. The appellant is Baloch being Chandio by caste. We are there fore of the opinion that the act of the appellant falls within exception to section 300 and therefore he is guilty of the offence 1 punishable under section 304, P.‑ P. C. The learned Additional Advocate General thinks that R. I. for 10 years would serve they purpose. We think that in the circumstances of the case R. I. for 7 years will meet the ends of justice. We therefore alter the conviction from one under section 302 to that under section 304, P. P. C. and reduce the sentence to R. I. for 7 years. With this modification in the judgment we dismiss the appeal. K. B. A. Sentence reduced.