1999 PLP 2119 (YLR)

This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No.369 of 1994 and Criminal Revision No.429 of 1994. Criminal Appeal has been filed by Farooq Ahmad, who was convicted and sentenced by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 31‑5‑1994 to undergo fourteen years' R.I. under section 302(c), P.P.C. Benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. was also granted to the appellant. There is a Criminal Revision field by the complainant Waqar Ahmad praying therein that sentence awarded to the appellant under section 302(c), P.P.C. may be enhanced to its maximum sentence as provided therein.

2. The prosecution case as given in Exh.PD, the F.I.R., lodged by Waqar Ahmad s/o Sohan Masih Christian, resident of 727‑F, Gulistan Colony, Faisalabad is that Nimat Ahmar Masih was his elder brother, who was working on temporary basis at the office of District Education Officer, Faisalabad at the time of occurrence. On 6‑1‑1992 at about 10‑00 a.m. the complainant alongwith Razzaq Masih, a resident of Street No.2, Chamman Zar Colony Town near Mohallah Daood Nagar, Hanock Gil Christian, a resident of 724/F, Gulistan Colony, Faisalabad went to the office of D.E.O., Faisalabad to see Nimat Ahmar and to have a dialogue with D.E.O. regarding his transfer. In the Account Branch of Office of Deputy Education Officer, Nimat Ahmar met the complainant and his companion and they began to talk with each other while standing in the verandah. Nimat Ahmar told the complainant and his colleague that Deputy Education Officer had left the office for some training purposes and they had to wait for to see him. Nimat Ahmar while standing in the verandah went to the latrine for urination leaving the complainant and his companion there. Many people were coming and going there. After some time the complainant and his companion heard the shrieks coming from latrine side. Razzaq, Hanook and complainant with some other officials of the office ran towards that side and witnessed that one person namely Farooq Ahmad son of Noor Muhammad Sheikh, Butcher by caste, resident of Chak No.242/RB was inflicting Churri blows at the right and, left side of the neck of Nimat Ahmar. In a staggering posture Nimat Ahmar was also subjected to Churri blows at his belly, face and other parts of the body. The witnesses when raised Lalkara, Farooq Ahmad threatened them to face the same consequences. The victim had soiled due to blood. Farooq accused with Churri made an effort to slip away from the place of occurrence but was handicapped by complainant, Razzaq and Hanook and others at the spot alongwith the crime weapon. Nimat Ahmar succumbed to the injuries at the spot. Nimat Ahmar was done to death by Farooq Ahmad on the basis of suspicion as the deceased used to pass derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) during his posting as teacher at the School Chak No.242/RB. Waqar complainant leaving Razzaq and Hanook Gill for the surveillance of the dead body went to the police station to report the matter.

3. After the registration of the case, the Investigating Officer came to the spot, collected blood‑stained earth vide memo. Exh.PE. Appellant was also arrested and he got recovered Churri which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PF on 6‑1‑1992. Appellant also got recovered his blood stained clothes at the time of arrest on 6‑1‑1992 consisting of one sweater P.10, one shirt P.11, one Shalwar P.12, which were taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PG.

4. Prosecution in order to prove its case produced seven witnesses in all. Thereafter, the statement of the appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he stated that the deceased used to pass derogatory remarks against the Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) and as a result of that he was transferred from High School of Chak No.242/RB, Police Station, Dijkot to the office of D.E.O., Faisalabad on the complaint of teachers of that school. Appellant had taken and pleaded the plea of right of self‑defence. Nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant. I have waited for him for the whole of the day and I am going to decide both these matters with the assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the State.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the learned trial Court has not believed the version of the appellants. As far as, right of self‑defence is concened, he submits that the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant by giving his own theory and i.e. of grave and sudden provocation. He further submits that question of grave and sudden provocation does not arise because this plea was never taken by‑the appellant nor there i5 any evidence on record and appellant has failed to prove the same as required under Article 121 of "Qanun‑e -Shahadat" Order, 1984.

6. Learned counsel for the State submits that the learned trial Court has disbelieved the ocular account in this case, the motive part of the occurrence and has relied upon the statement of the appellant. Learned State Counsel also very candidly submitted that in the instant case, the sentence which the appellant has already undergone be treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the State and have also gone through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court. The eye‑witnesses produced by the prosecution have no business to be present at the place of occurrence neither they are employees in the office of D.E.O. nor they are resident of the place of occurrence. The learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved their presence at the spot and has not given any credit to their statements. The learned trial Court has believed the statement of the appellant although he had not pleaded the plea of grave and sudden provocation therein, the appellant had taken the plea of right of self‑defence, which has not been believed by the learned trial Court.

8. I have also gone through the F.I.R. of this case, it has been admitted by the complainant himself in the last line of F.I.R., that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased on the ground that appellant had suspicion that while posting in Chak No.242/RB the deceased used to state derogatory remarks against Holy Prophet Hazarat Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). This fact also proves that the deceased used to state derogatory remarks against Holy Prophet Hazarat Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). The number of injuries also shows that the appellant had committed the murder of deceased on this account also. Moreover, Exh.PK to Exh.PK/5 shows that the deceased had been making derogatory remarks against Holy Prophet Hazarat Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) and the complaints were being made against the deceased by the teachers of the school and other persons. I have gone through these Exhibits, this is a sufficient provocation for a Muslim if he hears these types of derogatory remarks against Holy Prophet Hazarat Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). Moreover, learned State counsel has also very candidly submitted before this Court that in the instant case the sentence which the appellant had already undergone be treated sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

9. Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the State I think, that the sentence which the appellant has already undergone is treated to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly. With this modification, this appeal stands disposed of. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Q.M.H./M.A.K./F‑93/L Order accordingly.