1977 P Cr (PLP)

3. The appellant in his statement at the Court of Enquiry as well as at the trial admitted the correctness of the judicial confession. At the trial, he added as under: ‑ "That my aunt who had said that I had illicit connection with the deceased is false. Mst. Noor Jehan is my uncle's daughter and due to her had character this incident took place. When I saw her going with her boy‑friend I got out of control. I tried to stop her from going with that man on this they both attacked me."

4. Apart from the oral testimony in the case in regard to the death of Mst. Noor Jehan, there is also the evidence of Dr. Iqbal Ahmad, who held the autopsy, finding the following injuries on the person of the deceased (1) Incised wound right side abdomen from midline 8" below the right nipple measuring 2 'x 1" into cavity horizontal in direction. (2) Incised wound right side front of the abdomen 1" below the Injury No. 1 measuring 2" x 1" into cavity with omentum and loop of the intestine coming out. (3) Incised wound left side front of abdomen 1" from middle line 8" below the left nipple measuring 6" x 3" into cavity, with loop of intestine coming out. (4) Incised avergent left side chest front 1" from midline and the level of 9th rib measuring 2" x 1 " into skin deep. According to him, the injuries had been inflicted by a sharp and pointed knife, and death had occurred as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to the aforesaid injuries, specially Injury No. 3, which was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death.

5. Mst. Fatima was with Mst. Noor Jehan, when the actual incident took place. Mukhtar Ahmad, Ghulam Rasool and Shakeel Ahmad had been attracted by the cries of Mst. Fatima, and had gone to the "wardat", which was not far away from the house of Mst. Khursheed Bano. The appellant had been apprehended, and soon thereafter P. W. Manzoor Hussain had appeared on the scene, and had taken the appellant in his custody, Mst. Khursheed Band also was at the house, and, though she did not come out, but was supplied all the details, and had seen Mst. Fatima lying on the ground, but remained where she was, as, according to her, she was too much upset. Even the appellant admits the killing. The short question, therefore, for determination is, as to what would be the offence made out against him ?

6. The case of the appellant, in the main, is that he had killed Mst. Noor Jehan, as she was going with a lover, and, being a relation, he was cut to the quick. He tried to stop her, but then he was attacked. The question of there being any attack on him is wide of the mark. However, there are certain things, which are patently brought on the record. According to the version of Mst. Fatima before the Police, duly brought on the record, the appellant was a distant relation of theirs. She has also stated that Laddan had come for the `Soem' rites, along with his wife and mother‑in‑law. However, it is the prosecution case that Laddan was not in the company of Mst. Fatima and Mst. Noor Jehan at the relevant moment. Mst. Fatima admitted in the cross‑examination that Fazal, the person against whom the appellant had a suspicion of criminal intimacy with Mst. Noor Jehan, was with her. The appellant, presumably, thought that Mst. Noor Jehan would not mend her ways, and was bringing bad name to the family, He decided to wipe off this insult to the family in his own misguided way. Mst. Fatima, at the trial, added that the appellant made a short work of Mst. Noor Jehan, because he wanted to be on terms of intimacy with Asst. Noor Jehan, but the advances had been repulsed by the latter. This motive, which finds support from nowhere, is not to be found in the First Information Report, or from any other evidence on the record, thought Mst. Khursheed Bano, Mukhtar Ahmad. Shakeel Ahmad, Ghulam Rasool and Asghar Ali would be no strangers to the parties. There is therefore, no apparent motive for the murder, except what has been stated by the appellant. The appellant was present in Court, and appeared to be almost in the evening of his life. In the circumstances, the sentence of death is not called for.

7. In the result, the sentence of death awarded to the appellant is set aside and the reference is not accepted. His sentence under section 302, P. P. C. is, therefore, altered to life imprisonment. The appellant is present in Court, and is informed accordingly.

8. With this modification, the appeal stands dismissed, JAMALUDDIN H. AHMED, J.‑--I agree. Order accordingly,