1989 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 302‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439 Enhancement of sentence‑‑Witnesses supporting plea of accused Sentence award to accused could not be said to be inadequate considering nature of provocation which could be said to be grave and sudden‑‑Sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court quite in accordance with recent decisions of superior Courts‑‑Prayer for enhancement of sentence refused. Ch. Nasir Ahmed for Applicant. Date of hearing: 9th September, 1 It is contended by the learned counsel applicant that the accused/respondent had committed murder of deceased Abdul Hameed and as such he was liable under section 302 P.P.C. That the sentence awarded to him was inadequate and, therefore it is liable to be enhanced. He has further contended that the learned Judge had erred in awarding sentence of three years to the accused respondent and the same was inadequate. The case of the accused/respondent was that he committed murder of deceased Abdul Hameed due to grave and sudden provocation and this plea was supported by two of the prosecution witnesses namely, Lal Bux and Investigating Officer Manzoor Hussain Shah. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant/applicant has relied upon 1972 S C M R 95 Phulail Khan and another v. The State and has submitted that the statement of Lal Bux and I.O. Manzoor Hussain Shah were inadmissible in evidence and the learned trial Judge had erred in relying upon their admissions. I have gone through the above citation, and with utmost respect, I venture to say that the above decision is distinguishable and is not applicable to facts of the present case, inasmuch as in the above decision it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that:‑ "The statements of witnesses before the police or committing Court are not substantive evidence and cannot be relied upon as such." There is no cavil with the above principle enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. In the present case, the admissions made by the witnesses supporting the plea of accused/respondent were made before the trial Court, and therefore, the trial Court was justified in relying upon the same. Looking to the circumstances of the case and the nature of provocation which could be said to be grave and sudden the sentence of three years awarded to the respondent/accused cannot be said to be inadequate. The sentence awarded to the accused/respondent by the trial Court is quite in accord with the recent trend of the decisions of the superior Courts, therefore, the revision application is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./F‑93/K Revision declined.