MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH vs RASHID SHAH And Another
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the complainant for the enhancement of the sentence of the respondent, who was originally convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentenced to imprisonment for life, which conviction and sentence were subsequently altered by the Lahore High Court to Section 304 Part-I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 with a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question involved the propriety of altering the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder based on grave and sudden provocation arising from the deceased's refusal to accompany the respondent and her provocative remarks concerning illicit relations. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly appreciated the circumstances of the case, refusing to interfere with the reduction of sentence. The key principle laid down is that where a spouse acts under grave and sudden provocation due to provocative statements and refusal of conjugal rights leading to a loss of self-control, alteration of conviction from premeditated murder to culpable homicide is justified.
- Whether the High Court was justified in altering the conviction from Section 302 PPC to Section 304 Part-I PPC based on grave and sudden provocation?
- Does a spouse's refusal to accompany the husband coupled with provocative statements amount to grave and sudden provocation?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with the reduction of a sentence by the High Court in a criminal matter?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 304 Part-I, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Muhammad Abdullah complainant-petitioner for enhancement of sentence of Rashid Shah respondent. Rashid Shah respondent was charged under section 302 PPC for the murder of his wife Mst. Khurshid Bibi, and vide judgment of the trial Court dated 8 February 1979 he was convicted under section 302 PPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life plus fine. In appeal before the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, his conviction was altered from one under section 302 PPC to that under section 304 Part-I PPC and he was sentenced to five years RI plus fine there under.
2. The occurrence has been admitted by Rashid Shah respondent. He had married the deceased 1-- months before the occurrence and was living as Khana Damad. The prosecution case as advanced by the eye-witnesses is that Rashid Shah respondent insisted on his wife to leave the house of her parents and to go with him to his village, but since she refused to do so he murdered her with a hatchet. The version of Rashid Shah respondent on the other hand is that the deceased would not let him have sexual intercourse with her ever since they were married. He had therefore a suspicion that she was a bad character and had illicit relations with one Shah Nawaz of her village.
3. On the night of occurrence he told the deceased that he was her husband and she must accompany him to his house but she said to him in anger that she was not his wife and would not go with him and would rather go with Shah Nawaz. On this he lost his control and gave her hatchet blows which he used to keep for his protection. It was in this background that learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, accepted the version given by Rashid Shah respondent and altered his conviction reducing the sentence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that since Rashid Shah respondent kept hatchet with him it meant that he had pre-planned the murder of the deceased if she had refused to accompany him. It was next argued that the allegation against the deceased to the effect that she has previously eloped with someone or had developed illicit relations with one Shah Nawaz had been denied. It was next submitted that according to the ocular testimony the deceased was being given hatchet blows by Rashid Shah respondent when the eye-witnesses witnessed the occurrence.
5. We have heard learned counsel at some length. In our considered view it is not a fit case for interference with the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench. The result is that this petition is dismissed.