JUMMA KHAN Versus STATE

ORDER

MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN , J .‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 8‑5‑1985 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 1983 whereby the conviction and sentence awarded to the petitioner by the learned trial Judge was maintained.

2. Petitioner Jumma Khan, alongwith four others namely Muhammad Sabir, Muhammad Banaras, Muhammad Bashir and Gulab Khan were convicted and tried under section 302/307/148/149, P.P.C. The above‑named four co‑accused were acquitted while petitioner Jumma Khan was convicted under section 302, P.P.C. and was sentenced to death and a fine of Rs.20,000. Appeal against the conviction and sentence, as stated above, was dismissed and Murder Reference was answered in affirmative.

3. According to the prosecution, murder of Zamurrad deceased was committed on 6‑6‑1980 at 10 a.m. It is stated that Aurangzeb, complainant, and Zamurrad deceased, were on their way back home after making purchases from Rawalpindi and they were waylaid near the field of Muhammad Ramzan P.W.9 Jumma Khan petitioner is stated to have fired effectively at the deceased while the other accused gave beating to Aurangzeb P.W.8 complainant with butts of their guns and sticks. The deceased fell dead on the spot while Aurangzeb P.W.8 lodged the report on arrival of the police officer at the spot at about 3‑45 p.m. giving ocular account of the occurrence and also motive for the crime i.e. that a week prior to the occurrence Riasat son of Aurangzeb P.W.8 complainant had teased a girl of the family of the accused and consequently they retaliated by killing the deceased who was nephew and son‑in‑law of Aurangzeb, complainant.

4. Main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to the motive, submitted that Aurangzeb P.W.8, in his statement, at the trial stated:

"About eight or ten days before this occurrence my son Riasat was alleged to have teased a daughter of one Akbar who is a brother of Banaras accused. I and Zamurrad deceased, went to the accused and assured them that the allegation, levelled against Riasat, was unfounded. The accused were not satisfied and they threatened Zamurrad deceased with dire consequences. Zamurrad deceased told the accused that they could do anything they liked if they were not satisfied even after the assurance given to them on the Holy Qur'an."

The learned counsel contended that the above reproduced statement is a definite improvement on the version given earlier by Aurangzeb complained as contained in the F.I.R. wherein he never mentioned that they had approached the accused party for reconciliation and for satisfying them regarding the incident of teasing of a girl of their family. The learned counsel further submitted that even if this account of motive be taken as correct, the complainant side insulted the accused by outraging the modesty of a girl of their family and thus it is a case where death sentence was not called for.

5. We have gone through the evidence and considered the contentions of the learned counsel. We grant leave to examine the question of sentence only.

M.I./J‑1/S Leave granted.