SHAUKAT ALI Versus STATE
ORDER
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.‑‑‑ The petitioner seeks leave for appeal against the judgment dated 27‑2‑1995 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.
2.On 26‑4‑1994 for murder of Mst. Fatima Noor, second wife of his father Ghulam Yasin, the petitioner was convicted for offence under section 302(c), P.P.C. by Sessions Judge, Attock and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 20 years, further to pay Diyat of Rs.85,305 to her son Azam and Rs.42,653 to her daughter Mst. Ghulam Fatima, with ‑benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. .
3.The background of this petition is that on 10‑9‑1993 at 6‑10 p.m. complainant Muhammad Islam appeared before Muhammad Zaman, Police Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Pindigheb at Ikhlas Chowk and complained that on that day at about 2‑00 p.m. he went to see his paternal aunt Mst. Fatima Noor where he saw that her step‑son Shaukat Ali was quarrelling and inflicting Chhuri blows on her. On their commotion Mushtaq Ahmad and Noor Ahmad were attracted at the spot. The petitioner then, ran away. Mst. Fatima Noor succumbed to injuries.
4.The motive for commission of the murder is that children (including the petitioner) of Ghulam Yasin from first wife did not like marriage of their father with the deceased as they apprehended that their father would transfer his property in her name. Formal F.I.R. was registered at Police Station Pindigheb. Muhammad Zaman, Inspector Police (P.W. 11) went to the site, collected blood‑stained earth, prepared inquest and injury reports. He sent dead body to hospital for post-mortem. Recorded statements of witnesses. On 15‑9‑1993, he arrested the petitioner. On the same day the petitioner led to recovery of blood‑stained Chhuri. After. completion of the investigation he challaned the petitioner to face trial before the Court. He denied the charge and claimed trial. Prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses to prove the charge.
5.The petitioner did not deny the murder of his step‑mother but in reply to question No.6 explained the reasons therefore. It would be useful to reproduce it.
It reads:‑‑
"The fact of the matter is that I was, only about three or four years old when my mother died and since my childhood I have been studying in different religious institutions at different places. I had come to visit the house of my father after about one and half year from Faisalabad and reached the house of my father at about 10/11‑00 a.m. on the day of occurrence where I used to come and stay, whenever I visited our Dhok. The deceased had prepared tea and meal for me and my father Ghulam Yasin, who left for Juma prayer to village Malhoowali and I remained back at the Dhok with my mother Mst. Fatimah Noor. She washed my dirty clothes and asked my father that I would offer my Juma prayer at the residence who left for Malhoowali. After the departure of my father, my deceased step‑mother introduced the subject of my marriage with her daughter from her first husband (Mst. Ghulam Aistia), which proposal in the first instance I refused politely and my deceased mother insisted with vehemence on which I replied that I could not marry Mst. Ghulam Aisha, who had once eloped with a person of the village and had also been divorced by her husband Mehboob Khan as she was a known and notorious bad character. I had further told Mst. Fatirnah Noor that t Was Still studying but Mst. Fatimah Noor lost her temper and started hurling filthiest possible abuses to me and my real deceased mother and the abuses were so obscene and provoking that I lost my temper as Mst. Fatimah Noor shouted that perhaps I did not know the character of my mother who was worse than a prostitute and the whole village was her paramour, on which I lost complete control of my senses and picked up small knife lying nearby on a table in the same room and inflicted some blows to her under grave and sudden provocation. I also received a minor injury with the said knife on the right hand on the finger during the scuffle.
I after the occurrence went straight to the police station, produced that small knife and courted the arrest."
6.On his appeal, the High Court of Lahore, Rawalpindi Bench, on 27‑2‑1995 maintained his conviction under section 302(c), P.P.C but reduced his sentence from 20 years' R.I. to R.I. for ten years.
7.While taking us through the statement of the petitioner Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that on refusing to marry her daughter from her first husband, deceased started abusing him which provoked. the petitioner and under heat of passion he picked up knife and caused her injuries which resulted in her death.
8.The learned counsel then urged that in the circumstances of the case the sentence awarded to the petitioner is still too severe which may further be reduced.
9.To appreciate the learned counsel's submission we have gone through and examined 'the statement of the petitioner recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. before the trial Court.
10.In unequivocal words the petitioner has admitted that he had given knife blows to deceased. But he has explained that deceased asked him to marry her daughter. He refused. She continued on. Then on his explanation that he would not marry her daughter as she had eloped with a mar. of the village. Her husband had divorced her. She was a known and notorious bad character. The deceased lost tamper and started abusing him, Under provocation he picked up knife from a table and caused her injuries. But his earlier part of statement reflects that she was very kind to him. She washed his clothes. It was not unusual conduct of the deceased to see if her daughter gets married. The petitioner had continued on refusing the proposal.
11.He had no right for passing filthy remarks against her daughter. No mother could tolerate it. The petitioner had invited her to retaliate. He could have easily avoided the situation by keeping quiet, rebuking her, moderately beating her or leaving the house. He had no justification for picking up knife and causing six injuries one after the other on her person. The petitioner had provoked her to abuse him. He cannot claim for concession sought for provocation. The two Courts below have already taken a lenient view by awarding him lesser sentence. We are not inclined to reduce his sentence further. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed accordingly. Leave to appeal is refused.
N.H.Q./S‑962/S Leave refused.