STATE Versus MUHAMMAD ALI

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑ This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the acquittal of respondent Muhammad Ali by the High Court who was charged and convicted under section 302, P.P.C. along with his brother Muhammad Amir read with section 34, P.P.C. for the murder of their brother‑in- law Muhammad Ismail by the Sessions Judge, Peshawar. Muhammad Ali was sentenced to death while his brother Muhammad Amir to life imprisonment. They were also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each.

2. On appeal and reference, the High Court acquitted Muhammad Amir as it was of the opinion that there was no independent evidence to sustain his conviction apart from the part attributed to him in the judicial confession of his co‑accused Muhammad Ali, which could not be regarded as evidence to bring home the guilt to him. As regards Muhammad Ali, the High Court held that the judicial confession has to be accepted in its entirety and as there was no prosecution evidence to belie its correctness the High Court opined that a fair reading of the confession showed that the deceased was killed by him "purely on the ground of honour" and in the circumstances he would be entitled to the benefit of exception (1) of section 300 of the P.P.C. Accordingly, his conviction under section 302 was altered to section 304, Part I, P.P.C. and the sentence reduced from death to 5 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine was also remitted.

3. The State feeling dissatisfied moved this Court for leave to appeal and by its order dated 27‑11‑1977 this Court granted leave to consider the question A whether the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that if the judicial confession was accepted in its entirety the respondents' case did not fall under Section 302, P.P.C. but fell under Exception (1) of section 300.

4. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has taken us through the confession of Muhammad Ali and after some discussion at the Bar, the learned Additional Advocate‑General agreed that the view taken by the High Court of the confession was also a possible one and, therefore, it could not be interfered with, in an appeal against acquittal. Accordingly, he submitted that in the circumstances he would not press the appeal.

5. In the result this appeal is dismissed as not pressed:

6. M.A.K/S‑422/S Appeal dismissed.