1984 P Cr (PLP)

The motive was that Ahmad Sher was suspected to be carrying on with the sister of the appellant. The occurrence was seen by Allah Bakhsh, and Muhammad Bakhsh. The rest of the evidence is the recovery of hatchet P. 3 which was found to be stained with human blood, and finally the post-mortem report of the deceased. The appellant admitted the occurrence but not as alleged by the prosecution. He gave his own version. He told the trial Court as to bow, why and when the deceased was done to death. I shall refer to his state ment in detail later on. Muhammad Bakhsh was uncle of the deceased. He deposed that he used to cultivate the land of Ata Ullah Bhatti and so did the appellant. On the day of occurrence at about 8 a. m., Muhammad Bakhsh, Allah Bakhsh, Rehmat Ullah and Ahmad Sher were working at the thrasher in the land of Ata Ullah Bhatti. Zafar turned up there. He raised lalkara and told Ahmad Sher that he would not be spared. He then attacked him with hatchet. At that time, Ahmad Sher was sitting on the ground. He was hit do the head. He fell down and died instantaneously. According to Muhammad Bakhsh, he with the help of Allah Bakhsh and Rehmatullah caught hold of Zafar at the spot. Muhammad Bakhsh then deposed about the motive which has been referred to above. He further said that ten twelve days prior to the occurrence, the appellant and the deceased fought with each other and exchanged fist blows. This also was due to the deceased being carrying on with the sister of the appellant. Allah Bakhsh was real brother of the deceased. He corroborated his uncle Muhammad Bakhsh. He said that he, Muhammad Bakhsh, Rehmat Ullah and Ahmad Sher were busy working at the thrasher of Ata Ullah Bhatti. Ahmad Sher was sitting. Appellant came there armed with a hatchet. He raised lalkara and challenged Ahmad Sher. He told him that he would not go alive. He gave a hatchet blow on the head of Ahmad Sher who fell down and died. . On 22nd May, 1981 at 8-30 a. m. Dr. Muhammad Afzal, Medical Officer, City Dispensary, Jhang, conducted the post-mortem examination of Ahmad Sher and found an incised wound 18 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep (bone was also cut and brain matter was coming out of wound on top of head antero posteriorly. The injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. On 21st May, 1981, Zafar accused was produced before the police by Ata Ullah Bhatti. He was arrested. Ata Ullah also produced blood-stained hatchet P. 3 which was sealed into a parcel vide memo. P. E. The memo was attested by Muhammad Bakhsh. I now turn to the statement of the appellant. He admitted that he suspected the deceased of having illicit liaison with his sister Sakina but denied that there was any fight between him and the deceased 10/15 days prior to the occurrence. When the charge was put to him he said that it was incorrect. He further submitted that neither Muhammad Bakhsh nor Allah Bakhsh and Rehmatullah saw the occurrence. Similarly he said that it was incorrect that he was apprehended at the spot. He said that he had been roped in due to enmity with the prosecution witnesses who were related to the deceased. When questioned "Have you anything else to say", his answer was as under:- "I am innocent. I suspected that Ahmad Sher had illicit intimacy with my sister Mst. Sakina, therefore, I bad forbidden him from visiting my house. On 21st May, 1981 at 5 a. m. I left my house having a hatchet with me for cutting fuel-wood. When 1 reached near my sugar-cane field, I heard whispering from there and I saw Ahmad Sher embracing my sister Mst. Sakina. I challenged him whereupon he started running away towards the place of occurrence. I chased him and overtook him and then inflicted a hatchet blow hitting the back side of his head. I appeared before Ata Ullah Bhatti having a blood-stained hatchet with me. I asked him to produce me before the police. I inflicted the hatchet blow to Ahmad Sher due to grave and sudden provocation." The two eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution are blood relations of the deceased. They are interested. The prosecution case is that the deceased was carrying on with the real sister of the appellant. The appellant also admitted in his statement about the illicit liaison between his sister Sakina and the deceased. I, therefore, don't find any reason to disbelieve his statement. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction under section 302, P. P. C. is not maintainable. It is altered to one under section 304, Part II and the B sentence is reduced to five years' R. I. The period of his detention as under trial prisoner shall be deducted from the term of his sentence. With this modification the appeal is disposed of. The revision filed by the complainant has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. M. Y. H. Application dismissed.