MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus STATE
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 22-4-1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, whereby he convicted Muhammad Akram appellant under section 302, P.P.C. on two counts and sentenced him to imprisonment for life on each count, with a fine of Rs.15,000 for each offence. In default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further 15 months' R.I. on each count. One-third of the fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid to the complainant and his wife as legal heirs of the late Nasreen. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The appellant/convict was also given benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on the statement of Barkat Ali (P.W.1) Exh.PA, F.I.R. No.581 of 1988 was recorded on 31-12-1988 at Police Station, Ichhra, Lahore under section 302, P.P.C. Prosecution's case was that the complainant married his daughter Nasreen to the appellant in the year 1971. Out of the wedlock several children were born out of whom three sons and four daughters are alive. The allegation against the appellant was that he was having a bad eye on his real daughter Shazia due to which the complainant's daughter Mst. Nasreen was constrained to stay at home all the time and could not go anywhere. On 30-12-1988 the complainant alongwith his two sons-in-law, namely, Allah Rakha and Muhammad Yunus were to attend the funeral of one Rana Abdul Aziz from their brotherhood. Since the funeral was delayed as such the complainant in the company of his sons-in-law reached the house of his daughter Mst. Nasreen where the appellant was also present. The complainant desired his daughter to accompany him whereupon she sought permission from the appellant to take alongwith her Mst. Shazia to which he refused. On her insistence the appellant lost his temper and picked up a chhuri from the residential room and caused injuries to both Mst. Nasreen and Mst. Shazia i.e. mother and daughter who subsequently succumbed to the injuries. He was apprehended at the spot. The post-mortem examination of both the ladies was conducted on' 1-1-1989. After usual investigation challan was submitted and 22 witnesses were mentioned in the calendar of witnesses.
3. The prosecution examined only Barkat Ali complainant as (P.W.1). Thereafter an application was moved by the parties under sections 309, 310, 338(E) and (H) of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1991 read with section 345, Cr.P.C. for the composition of the offence. The appellant voluntarily made a request for the recording of his confession which was recorded as under:---
4. "I have been charged with double murder of my wife, namely, Nasreen and daughter, namely Shazia. I am making this statement voluntarily without any coercion. I am out of handcuffs. I feel free to make the statement which I am sure is adverse to my interest. I do hereby confess that I had killed my wife, namely, Nasreen and daughter, namely, Shazia at my house as alleged against me in the F.I.R. I was constrained to resort to the murders under grave and sudden provocation when I lost self-control on seeing a stranger in the company of my daughter in my residential room and on seeing my wife near the door of the room and the stranger slipped away. On my arrival, my wife held my testicles and both the deceased grappled with me to save the stranger. Then I picked up a chhuri from my room and killed both of them due to my family honour at the spot and went to the police station and informed the police about the occurrence and also produced the weapon of offence before the police."
5. Learned trial Judge dismissed the composition application and through judgment assailed in this appeal convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. and sentenced him as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned State counsel alongwith the learned counsel for the complainant. The latter two could not say a single word in support of the impugned judgment. I do not want to dilate upon the veracity of the prosecution evidence or that of confessional statement in view of the nature of the order which I am going to pass. The appellant in this case took the plea of grave and sudden provocation but the same was rejected without any evidence. None from the prosecution side appeared except the complainant Barkat Ali to support its case. The learned trial Judge has taken into consideration the whole medical evidence and the other circumstances of the case without bringing them on the record. He has illegally accepted a portion of the appellant's confessional statement A and discarded the remainder part against established principle of law. He had erroneously held it a cold-blooded murder and convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. Accordingly the appeal is accepted and the judgment, dated 22-4-1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, is hereby set aside and the case is remitted to the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore to be decided afresh, after providing full opportunity to the prosecution as well as the appellant to produce evidence, if they so feel.
7. So far as Crl. Rev. No.340 of 1991 is concerned it is made clear that I do not want to dilate upon it as the case is being remanded to the trial Court to be decided afresh and the same is dismissed accordingly.
8. N.H.Q./M-809/L
9. Case remanded.