BASHIR AHMAD Versus STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which confirmed the appellant's conviction and death sentence for the murder of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the appellant, who admitted to the killings, acted under grave and sudden provocation, thereby warranting a mitigation of the death sentence. The prosecution alleged the murders were motivated by the appellant's illicit relations with one of the deceased, while the appellant contended he killed the victims after discovering them in an objectionable position. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Supreme Court found that while the prosecution's motive theory was plausible, the appellant's consistent plea of grave and sudden provocation, supported by the circumstances of the attack, created a reasonable probability that his version might be true. Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but altered the sentence of death to imprisonment for life. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's case and the defence's plea of grave and sudden provocation are examined in juxtaposition, and the latter carries a reasonable probability of truth, the court may mitigate the sentence in the interest of justice.
- Can a death sentence be commuted to life imprisonment when the accused consistently pleads grave and sudden provocation?
- Does the existence of a reasonable probability regarding the defence's version of events justify the mitigation of a capital sentence?
- Is the court required to consider the defence's plea of grave and sudden provocation even in the absence of substantial independent evidence, if the accused's admission and surrounding circumstances support it?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J. ---This appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 25-1-1995 whereby the appeal of the appellant was dismissed and his sentence of death was confirmed and the fine was also maintained.
2. According to the F.I.R. Exh.P.F., Mst. Sughran Bibi and Mst. Azizan Bibi were sisters. Mst Sughran Bibi was married to Muhammad Ashraf deceased while Mst. Azizan Bibi was married to the appellant. Due to the flood devastation, the appellant had shifted to the house of Muhammad Ashraf deceased, where they were living for the last 3/4 months. In the meantime, the appellant developed illicit relations with Mst. Sughran Bibi. The rumour about the illicit relations spread in the locality whereupon the complaint and his brother asked Muhammad Ashraf deceased to turn out the couple from his house but lie turned deaf ear to it. On the eventful night, Muhammad Ashraf and his wife and similarly, appellant and his wife went to sleep in their room. At about 11-00 p.m., the complainant heard the hue and cry of his brother Muhammad Ashraf, upon which he rushed there and saw in the light of the lantern that appellant was inflicting 'Kassi' blows on his brother. When he tried to intervene for separation, he was threatened of the same consequence. Mst. Sughran Bibi had caught hold of Mst. Azizan Bibi, and the appellant inflicted 'Kassi' blows on her. After the occurrence the appellant alongwith Mst. Sughran Bibi fled away from the scene of occurrence. Both the injured succumbed to their injuries. The accused were tried by learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal who found them guilty of the offence and consequently convicted them under section 302/34, P.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to death with fine of Rs.50,000 or in default whereof to suffer 5 years' R.I. On recovery of the fine, the same was to be paid to the legal heirs of Muhammad Ashraf deceased. Mst. Sughran Bibi was sentenced to imprisonment for life. On appeal before the Lahore High Court, the learned Division Bench acquitted Mst. Sughran Bibi of the charge while maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant. Leave to A appeal was granted to re-examine the whole case to determine whether the appellant was correctly awarded the death sentence in view of his version which he took during the trial that he committed the offence under grave and A sudden provocation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that right from the beginning the appellant has taken the plea that he committed the offence under grave and sudden provocation, therefore, the plea deserves consideration. He referred to the appellant's statement recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., wherein he while answering question No. 12 stated that on the fateful night when he caiiie from the fields, entered the room of Muhammad Ashraf and saw him and Mst. Azizan Bibi lying together on one cot in objectionable position, he lost control and under grave and sudden provocation killed both of them with the 'Kassi' lying thereby. He submitted that it is a case of divergent versions, wherein the prosecution has taken the plea that appellant had developed illicit relations with Mst. Sughran Bibi wife of Muhammad Ashraf deceased and in order to marry her, eliminated Muhammad Ashraf and Mst. Azizan Bibi, whereas the appellant's version is that Muhammad Ashraf had developed illicit relations with his wife, and upon seeing them in objectionable condition, he killed them under grave and sudden provocation.
4. ???????? In so far as the prosecution version is concerned, it finds support from the statements of P.W.7 and P.W.8 that before the occurrence it was commonly rumoured that the appellant and Mst. Sughran Bibi had developed illicit relations, on which father and brother of Muhammad Ashraf asked him to turn the couple out of his house but he did not care to accede to the said advice. So far as the defence version is concerned, although there is no substantial evidence on record to support it, yet admission of the appellant that he killed his wife with the alleged paramour and adhering to such plea throughout would show that there is a reasonable probability in his version. g The prosecution case and the defence version examined in juxtaposition: would suggest that the plea of defence might be true and such a possibility. cannot be ruled out altogether. Both the witnesses P.W.7 and P.W.8 were attracted to the spot after the. attack had already been launched and they did not say anything as to what happened prior to attack. The number of injuries on both the deceased, however, suggest that there was some serious provocation which caused the appellant to attack his wife and the alleged paramour.
5. In such circumstances, in abundant caution, we while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, alter the sentence of death to that of life imprisonment. The fine and imprisonment in default thereof is, however, maintained. With this modification, the appeal is dismissed.
M.B.A./B-21/S ???????????
Order accordingly