NIAMAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD YAQUB
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking the enhancement of sentences awarded to the respondent. The respondent had been tried for murder and attempted murder but was convicted by the trial court under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on a finding of grave and sudden provocation. The core legal question was whether the trial court's decision to convict under Section 304 rather than Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warranted interference or a retrial. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had properly juxtaposed the prosecution and defense versions, concluding that the respondent acted under grave and sudden provocation upon discovering his wife in an immoral act. Finding no inconsistency in the lower courts' reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the trial court's assessment of evidence regarding provocation and loss of self-control did not merit appellate interference.
- Can a trial court's finding of grave and sudden provocation be interfered with if the reasoning is consistent with the circumstances of the case?
- Is a retrial appropriate when a complainant previously sought only the enhancement of a sentence in a criminal revision petition?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.- -This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Niamat Khan complainant-petitioner against the judgment of the trial Court by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore for not convicting and sentencing Muhammad Yaqub respondent of a charge under section 302, P.P.C., and has prayed for his retrial.
2. Muhammad Yaqub respondent was tried for offences under section 302/307, P.P.C. but the trial Court convicted him under section 304, P.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' R.I. plus fine. He was further convicted under section 324, P.P.C. on two counts and sentenced to three months' R.I. on each count. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. Niamat Khan complainant-petitioner thereupon challenged the judgment of the trial Court in the form of criminal revision before the Lahore High Court, Lahore in which he had prayed that the sentence awarded to Muhammad Yaqub respondent under section 304, P.P.C. should be enhanced to life imprisonment and that the sentence under section 324, P.P.C. awarded to him should also be enhanced. This criminal revision was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Hence the present petition.
4. It was argued by the learned counsel that there was no justification on the part of the trial Court for having not convicting and sentencing Muhammad Yaqub respondent under section 302 and that, therefore, he should be retried. It was pointed out to the learned counsel that he had prayed for retrial of the respondent only in his petition for leave to appeal in this Court whereas before the High Court in his criminal revision his prayer was only for enhancement of the sentences awarded to the respondent under section 304/324, P.P.C.
5. In this case the trial Court had considered the prosecution as well as defence versions by putting them in juxtaposition and arrived at the conclusion that the defence version was the correct version of the occurrence. The respondent had murdered his wife Mst. Rashida under grave and sudden provocation and the finding of the High Court is that the reasons advanced by the trial Court for arriving a this conclusion was not inconsistent with the circumstances of the case. Thus the respondent had lost his control on seeing the deceased indulging in immoral activity.
6. We have heard learned counsel at some length but in our view no case is made out for interference. The result is that this petition is dismissed.
7. M.I./N-31/S Petition dismissed.