2002 PLP 2169 (YLR)

2. Occurrence in this case had taken place at 8 a.m. on 18‑11‑1996 at distance of 5 Kms. from Police Station Bhagtanwala, District Sargodha while the matter was reported by Muhammad Akram at 9‑30 a.m. on the same day and the formal F.I.R. Exh.P.A. was recorded by Dost Muhammad S.‑I.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is resident of Chak No.22/SB. His son Muhammad Aslam was a student of 10th class. On 18‑11‑1996 at about 7 a.m., Aslam son of the complainant was going to school and when he reached near the house of Muhammad Ameer, Shehbaz accused while armed with .12 bore gun came there, raised a Lalkara and fired at Aslam hitting on his buttock. Aslam took the turn and Shehbaz accused fired a second shot which hit on the legs of the victim. On receipt of fire‑arm injuries, Aslam fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by Muhammad Akram complainant himself, Haji Ahmad and Saleem Ullah. The injured was taken to hospital to where he succumbed to his injuries. The motive behind the occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. was that Shehbaz accused had suspicions that Aslam deceased was carrying illicit relations with his wife Mst. Ayesha Bibi.

4. Investigation of this case was taken over by Dost Muhammad S.‑I. P.W.10. He went to the hospital where the dead body of the deceased was lying, prepared the inquest report Exh.P.G., then went to the spot, prepared the site plan without scale Exh.P.H., took into possession blood‑stained earth vide memo. Exh. P.B. and on 27‑11‑1996 arrested Shehbaz accused and obtained his physical remand. On 29‑11‑1996, Shehbaz while in custody got recovered .12 bore gun which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.P.F. After completion of the remaining formal investigation, the accused was challaned to face the trial.

5. At the trial, prosecution in order to prove its case produced 10 witnesses in all, then the learned D.A. tendered in evidence report of the Chemical Examiner Exh.P.J., report of the Serologist Exh.P.K. and closed the prosecution case. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. in which he pleaded innocence and after conclusion of the trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced as stated above.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no denying the fact that the appellant had admitted his guilt but it is not a case of capital punishment because the appellant committed the murder of the deceased to vindicate his family honour. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to reply given by the convict in answer to questions Nos.3 and 6 in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Our attention has also been drawn to some portion of cross examination of Muhammad Akram, the complainant in this case, learned counsel submits that the appellant had vindicated his family honour because the deceased was having illicit relations with wife of the appellant. Further submits that even this was the motive mentioned by the complainant himself in the F.I.R.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the appellant cannot be given a licensee to kill the people under the garb of sudden and grave provocation or Ghairat. Further submits that the appellant having admitted his guilt he is not entitled to any concession.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The motive given in the F. I. R. by the complainant reads as under:‑‑ "Shahbaz had suspicion that Muhammad Aslam, son of the complainant had illicit relations with Mst. Ayesha wife of accused and due to this grudge, the accused had committed the murder of the deceased." Muhammad Akram, the complainant who is father of the deceased while being cross examination stated as under:‑‑ "I cannot say when the illicit connection of Mst. Ayesha with Aslam deceased were developed. Before the occurrence, women‑folk of both the houses (my women‑folk and the woman‑folk of accused) quarreled with each other and they disclosed the illicit relations of Mst. Ayesha and Muhammad Aslam deceased." In this view of the matter we are of the considered view that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased in order to vindicate his family honour and it is a mitigating circumstance in favour of the appellant. At this stage, we may advantageously refer to the case of Ahmad and others v. The State 1982 SCMR 1049 where in their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court ruled that the murder having been occasioned for no other reason except for family honour, the sentence of death was not to be imposed and was commuted to imprisonment for life. The same was taken in the case of Muhammad Afzal v. The State 1987 SCMR 1864 their Lordships of the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:‑‑ "As regards the petition filed by Muhammad Afzal, is may be mentioned that on prosecution's own showing Salabat had killed the deceased in order to rehabilitate his family honour. It is, therefore, not a tit case where capital sentence could have been awarded to Salabat. " Guided by the law laid down by the Honourable apex Court of the country, we treat the factum of having murdered the deceased by the appellant in order to vindicate the family honour, to be a mitigating circumstance and though maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. but reduce the same from death to imprisonment for life and also allow him the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The sentence of fine and compensation is set aside. The death sentence of Shahbaz appellant is not confirmed. Murder Reference is replied in the negative. H.B.T./S‑461/L Order accordingly.