1986 P Cr (PLP)

Shafique another eye‑witness said that the appellant was known to him. Appellant used to visit Murad Ali. Twice or thrice he came and enquired from Murad Ali about his mother and Nawaz but he was told by Murad Ali that he did not know the whereabouts of both. In this connection both exchanged hot words. Certain persons in the market intervened and the matter was dropped. On the day of occurrence, he was sitting outside his shop. Siraj Din and Arif were also standing in the market. There were two or three other persons. One of them oaf, Tariq, a shop keeper of the market. The appellant came. He entered the shop of Allah Rakha. After about ten minutes the witness heard noise of Abdul Wahid alias Papu that his father was being killed. On hearing this they rushed towards the scene of occurrence and saw the appellant giving Chhuri blow on the left flank of Murad Ali. He gave two more blows on the back. Shafique and others tried to catch hold of the appellant but they were threatened not to come near. Appellant ran towards Patter Market with Chhuri in his hand. Abdul Wahid alias Papu was eleven years of age when he entered the witness box. The trial Judge asked him a few questions to make sure whether the boy was intelligent enough to give evidence. The Judge having satisfied himself that the boy knew the purpose of his visit to the Court examined him. Papu said that the appellant was known to him. Deceased was his father. During the days of occurrence Papu was working at tea stall and was living with his father in Bazar Al‑Hadeed. On 5‑2‑1982, he was sitting in the shop of Allah Rakha. At about 4‑00 p.m. the appellant came there. He enquired about his mother Mst. Gulzari from his father. Murad Ali told the appellant that he knew nothing about her. The appellant demanded fare from Murad Ali for going back to his residence. Murad Ali offered him Rs.10. The appellant snatched the currency note. Papu said that actually the appellant snatched all the money from his father When his father tried to take back the excess, the appellant pulled out a Chhuri. Abdul Wahid raised hue and cry. The appellant hit his father with Chhuri on the left flank. Murad Ali fell down. He was given more blows. The persons present at the spot tried to catch hold of the accused. They were threatened. The accused took to his heels with Chhuri in his hand. The post‑mortem was conducted by Dr. Abdul Hameed. The doctor found three incised wounds on left lateral side of chest, back of left chest and back of right chest. All the injuries were ante-mortem and caused by Sharp‑edged weapon. The appellant in his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied all the allegations. When questioned why this case against him he gave the following answer:‑-- "In the days of occurrence, I was living with Murad Ali deceased, his son Nawaz and my mother Gulzari Begum. My father Ashiq Hussain was a sick and ailing peen and he was unable to earn his livelihood. My mother used to go at some houses and earn livelihood for me and my two younger sisters. As Murad Ali deceased was our relative he offered my mother for living with him and so my mother started living with Murad Ali at the house situated in Baghbanpura, Lahore. I, my two younger sisters were also living with my mother. Some days before the occurrence my mother complained to Murad Ali deceased that Siraj Din P.W. who was on visiting terms with the deceased had tried to develop illicit relations with her. She also told Murad Ali in my presence that Siraj Din P.W. threatened her that if she would not cultivate love affairs with Siraj Din P.W. he would ask Murad All deceased to turn us out from his house. At this Murad Ali deceased said to my mother that he would put this matter before the office- bearers of the Union of Bazar A1‑Hadeed and I would also stop Siraj Din P.W. from visiting at Baghbanpura an our residence. Murad Ali deceased asked Siraj Din P. W. regarding this incident who became infuriated and he exchanged hot words with Murad Ali deceased. Murad Ali said that he would refer this matter to the office‑bearers of the Union of Bazar Al‑Hadeed on which Siraj Din P.W. replied that if Murad Ali tried to defame him he would not be spared and Siraj Din P.W. will get him finished. Actually Murad Ali deceased had been murdered at the instance of Siraj Din P.W. by his hired criminals. Siraj Din P. W. is a rich and influential person. He has involved me in this case falsely just to save his skin and also to take revenge from my mother for not co‑operating Siraj Din P. W. for his evil designs, " The appellant in his statement said that he would like to produce defence, but ultimately he declined to produce any evidence in defence. Mat. Sakina Bibi, widow of the deceased appeared tore me. Counsel for the appellant identified her. The widow said that she had pardoned the appellant. She has .no objection in case he is acquitted. I recorded her statement which she thumb‑marked. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the widow had compromised. The appeal be accepted and the appellant be set free. I do not think it is permissible to do so in law. I therefore, went through the entire evidence. I did not come across any discrepancy in ocular evidence. All the three eye‑witnesses held the appellant responsible for the murder of Murad Ali. I think the case as such has been proved against the appellant beyond doubt. There is one strong element which goes in favour of the appellant. This was the conduct of the son of the deceased via‑a‑via the mother of the appellant. It appears that the mother was a party to the liaison between her and Muhammad Nawaz, her lover. The appellant did not approve of this companionship. He was offended. For him it was a matter of prestige and family honour. The appellant, a young boy of 16, could not tolerate his mother living as concubine to Nawaz. There is an evidence to the effect that the appellant had been going and enquiring from Murad Ali about the whereabouts of his mother. Every time he was put off. Directly Murad Ali was not responsible for the doings of his son and the mother of the appellant but he could not be completely excused for the activities of Nawaz being his father. No doubt the appellant did not kill the paramour of his mother but all the time he was being haunted by the idea of his mother leading a sinful life. As a matter of fact this thing got stuck into his sub‑conscious. Anything concerning his mother and Nawaz naturally revived what was going on between Mst. Gulzari and Nawaz. It is, therefore, natural that the eight of Murad reflected on the conduct of his son and Mst. Gulzari. The question of demanding fare and snatching the money was just an excuse. As a matter of fact it was the elopement of his mother which was behind all this. It is, therefore. natural that it became impossible for the appellant to control himself on sight of Murad Ali. The fact that the appellant carried a Chhuri also shows that all the time he was looking for an opportunity to settle his account with the lover of his mother. I am, therefore, of the view that this provided long standing provocation to the appellant. As such he did not deserve life imprisonment. His conviction is accordingly altered from section 302, P.P.C to section 304, Part II, P.P.C. In my view the appellant also deserved leniency in the quantum of sentence because of the age and incident of his mother living in the company of son of Murad Ali without a valid matrimonial alliance. I, therefore, think that the sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. S.G.D. Order accordingly.