P L D 1991 Supreme Court 170 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.‑‑This appeal through leave of the Court is directed; against refusal by the High Court to interfere with the conviction of the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment. His appeal in this behalf was dismissed. While granting leave to appeal it was noted that the conviction is based on: the eye‑witness account furnished by the brother and mother of the deceased who is Mst. Amiran wife of the appellant; the recovery of blood‑stained hatchet at his instance and the recovery of the blood‑stained Chaddar and shirt from his person. The occurrence is of night between 11th/12th of January, 1978. When arrested after about a month he was found wearing such clothes which had some blood stains on them. Leave to appeal was granted to re‑examine the evidence in order to see; whether, normal principles of appreciation of evidence in a criminal case were followed or not. There is force in the argument of the learned counsel that the on motive evidence is weak and not much convincing. On the other hand relying on the number and nature of injuries which are large in number and many of them are serious he contended that something extraordinary must have happened before the appellant inflicted these injuries. Accordingly, as argued by him, the appellant should have been allowed due benefit in this behalf. When questioned as to what is the legal plea on account of which such circumstance by itself would be enough either to acquit the appellant or to alter his conviction to a lesser offence; learned counsel stated that it can be assumed that he must have been provoked to do such act of cruelty otherwise there is nothing on record to explain his conduct. The appellant was at liberty to state the reasons which led him to commit such a cruel murder. If it was on account of some grave provocation the same was snot sudden. His conviction would not be altered from sections 302 to 304 Part I P.P.C. He not having taken the Court into confidence, it is not possible to conjecture that if at all he was provoked it must have been a sudden affair. A possibility cannot be excluded that even if he had some lurking provocation which might also be grave, he might have planned the murder. With regard to the evidence suffice it to observe that it was for the appellant an inmate of house and it was for him to explain how his wife met her death under the same roof. Otherwise too the rationale underlying the concept of last seen should also be applicable. Accordingly, no justification has been made out for interference with' the conviction under section 302, P.P.C. He has already been awarded lesser sentence on account of similar considerations as pointed out by the learned counsel. No further benefit can be given to him except that if he has not been allowed the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. he shall be allowed the same. M.BA./M‑1443/S Appeal dismissed.