MUHAMMAD SARWAR AND 2 Others vs The STATE
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29th March, 1981, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal and confirmed the death sentences of petitioners Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Anwar under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of Siddiq and his son Ashfaq, while another petitioner received a lesser penalty. The core legal question is whether the offence fell under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, or if a lesser charge was attracted in view of the sudden provocation arising from an earlier morning quarrel between the boys of the respective families. The Supreme Court held that the contention regarding grave and sudden provocation requires detailed examination. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal to the petitioners. The key principle laid down is that an antecedent quarrel and sudden provocation involving family members can furnish sufficient grounds to examine the applicability of a lesser sentence than capital punishment in a murder case.
- Does an earlier quarrel between family members constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to alter a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal when the proportionality of the sentence in light of immediate provocation requires examination?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.--The petitioners are aggrieved by the judg--ment of the Lahore High Court dated 29th March, 1981, where their appeal from their conviction under section 302/34, P. P. C. Of the murder of Siddiq A.I and his son Ashfaq deceased was dismissed and the death sentences passed against Muhammad Sarwar and Muhammad Anwar, petitioners 1 and 2, were confirmed.
2. The occurrence giving rise to the case against the petitioners took place on 24th September, 1978 at 1.00 p. m. When Muhammad Sarwar armed with a dagger, Muhammad Anwar with a knife and Muhammad Afzal with a chhuri came armed to the dera of the deceased and caused their death.
The immediate motive for the occurrence was an incident earlier in the morning, in which in a quarrel between two boys, i.e., Shehzad (a son of deceased Siddiq A.I) and Arsh d (a brother Of the petitioners) Ashfaq deceased had given slaps to Arshad. In the course of the investigation, the petitioners were arrested and at their instance blood-stained weapons as aforesaid and clothes were recovered. As only one injury had been attributed to Muhammad Afzal petitioner which was on the person of Siddiq A.I deceased and which was not fatal, he was given the lesser penalty.
3. It is contended that in view of the earlier incident which had acted as a provocation, the offence did not fall under section 302, P. P. C. For which reliance was placed on AIR 1945 P C 118 and PLD 1967 SC 18. We feel that the contention requires to be examined. We accord--ingly grant the petitioners leave to appeal.