KARIM BAKHSH Versus STATE

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J, --This petition for leave has been filed by Karim Bakhsh petitioner who was convicted under Section 302, P.P.C. for the murder of his wife Mst. Saida and was sentenced to death plus fine by the trial Court. On appeal the conviction as well as the sentence were maintained.

2. The occurrence took place at 11-30 p.m. on 19 October, 1983 in the house of mst. Sakina Mai mother of the deceased in Mohallah Nur Shah .Bukhari, Ahmadpur East. She lodged the F.I.R. in this case. The "petitioner was arrested on 23 October, 1983 and at his instance was recovered human blood-stained knife. His human blood stained Shalwar and shirt were also taken into possession by the police. There are three eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely, Mst. Sakina Mai mother of the deceased who is a natural witness, Syed Imtiaz Hussain P.W. and Ashiq Hussain P.W. both not related. According to the medical evidence the deceased had ten stab wounds on her body caused by sharp-edged weapon. The motive is that the petitioner compelled his wife i.e. the deceased to indulge in prostitution. She refused to do so and thus a dispute arose between them. Thereafter she left her husband's house and came to live with her mother. She then filed a suit for dissolution of marriage against the petitioner who got annoyed and injured her even before the present occurrence. As a result a case had already been registered against the petitioner under section 324, P.P.C. On the fateful night the petitioner entered into the sleeping room where the deceased was asleep with her mother, and while sitting on her chest caused injuries with a knife to her as a result of which she died in the hospital.

3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner firstly that the immediate cause of occurrence was not known in the instant case. He took us through the statements of the eye-witnesses and in particular the statement of Mst. Sakina Mai P.W. to show that when she woke up on hearing alarm the petitioner had already caused some injuries to the deceased. The other eye-witnesses who had seen the occurrence also arrived while injuries were being caused by the petitioner to the deceased. Thus according to the learned counsel the immediate cause of occurrence was not known. Secondly it was argued by the learned counsel that there was involved an element to avenge family honour for it was stated in her statement by Mst. Sakina Mai P.W. that sometime a person namely Aslam Days used to visit and that she had prevented the deceased from meeting him. It was further pointed out that this witness had only heard from neighbours and other people that the petitioner had insisted on the deceased to lead an immoral life. Thus, according to learned counsel it was a mere hearsay. The reasoning of the learned counsel is that the petitioner killed the deceased because he had suspected that she was carrying on with Aslam Daya. Thirdly it was argued that there was a compromise arrived at in his office between the parties and in support of the same an application had been placed on the record supported by the affidavit of Mst. Sakina Mai P.W. complainant mother of the deceased.

4. We have gone through the application for compromise placed on the record but in our considered opinion the terms of the same are not adequate enough to form a mitigating circumstance in the instant case. So far as the other arguments are concerned they were. raised before the Courts below and had been properly attended to and were rejected. After perusal of the record and hearing the learned counsel we too are of the view that the petitioner had a motive to murder the deceased as she (the deceased) had left him and had started dissolution of marriage proceedings against him. He had even earlier injured her and a case was pending against him under section 324, P.P.C. Therefore, it was not a case where the motive could be said to be shrouded in mystery or that the immediate cause of occurrence was not known. Similarly there is nothing on the record to indicate that any element of avenging family honour was involved in the instant case. After carefully considering the arguments of the learned counsel we are of the view that it is not a fit case for the grant of leave.

5. The petition is therefore dismissed.

6. M.I./-33/S Petition dismissed.