Mitigation of offence

S. 302-Murder case-Mitigation of offence-No reason for prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate appellant, witnesses being closely related-Presence of witnesses on spot not liable to be questioned, witnesses having been sitting in common chowk where occurrence took place and male members of village families normally came out after evening meal for brief chit-chat-Accused also remaining absconder for a long time and could not offer any plausible reason for his absence from village-Contention that there being no motive for crime and one part put forward by prosecution having been proved false, there must be some dispute which annoyed accused appellant and he committed crime under agitated state of mind-Held : Something appears to have occurred on spur of moment resulting in occurrence under consideration-Sentence of death, in circumstances, altered to one of life imprisonment and fine.

Ss. 392 & 300, Exception Iv-Murder-Sudden fight-Mitigation of offence-No evidence to show accused having known of deceased having to pass in front of their khokha-No preplanning for offence Appellant's being armed with a rifle belonging to his father only confirming his own statement of being in habit of collecting Jagga tax and habitually carrying rifle for such purpose - Possibility existing of something having been said or done by either party leading to a scuffle and appellant having in heat of moment fired a shot on deceased when his brother (acquitted accused) in a helpless state Appellant though in circumstances could not have right of private defence nor all conditions contained in Exception 1 v to S. 300, P. P. C. satisfied, yet flare up being sudden and involvement of acquitted accused having remained shrouded in mystery, case, held, fit for award of lesser of two penalties-

S. 302-Murder-Mitigation of offence-Brother of accused murdered some years back and deceased and others charged for offence Deceased however acquitted-Deceased, according to prosecution case suspected by accused appellant of having had a hand in murder of his brother-Accused appellant 25 years of age at time of commission of offence and 8 years old at time of murder of his brother-Reasons for lesser penalty as given in Ajun Shah's case (P L D 1980 S C 109) held, applicable in case in hand-Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment in circumstances but fine increased and ordered to be paid to deceased's heir if realized -[Sentence].

Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-[Murder case]-Mitigation of offence-Leave to appeal-Contention that 'in view of age of petitioner (15/16 years) and motive alleged by prosecution itself that his father had been murdered when he only about 2/3 years old, that he firmly believed deceased having murdered his father, and he committed murder to avenge his father's murder-Contention appearing to have substance, leave to appeal granted to consider, question.-[Leave to appeal].

S. 302-Mitigation of offence-Death sentence, held, not called for in cases involving family honour touching females.-[Sentence].