GHULAM HAIDER KHAN vs MUHAMMAD HAYAT and 3 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment of the lower court convicting the respondent Muhammad Hayat under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder on the ground of grave and sudden provocation, while acquitting the other co-accused. The petitioner sought either a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 or an enhancement of the seven-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The core legal question was whether the case warranted interference regarding the finding of sudden provocation and the adequacy of the sentence given the mitigating circumstance that the deceased had molested the accused's sister, resulting in pregnancy. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the finding of sudden provocation was well-founded and the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, laying down the principle that appellate interference is unwarranted in culpable homicide convictions where grave and sudden provocation is established.
- Whether a conviction under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is justified when the act is committed under grave and sudden provocation?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a sentence of rigorous imprisonment under Section 304, Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the presence of strong mitigating circumstances?
- Whether molestation of a family member resulting in pregnancy constitutes grave and sudden provocation to reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Section 304, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the complainant side in a case of culpable homicide wherein Muhammad Hayat accused respondent was given the benefit of lesser offence and sentenced under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. On the finding of grave and sudden provocation. The other two accused/respondents were acquitted.
2. ' Learned counsel has pressed the case only against Muhammad Hayat on two lines--one, that he was guilty under section 302, P.P.C., and in the alternative in any case the sentence of 7 years' R.I.
3. Under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. Should be enhanced.
4. After hearing the learned counsel on merits we do not agree with him that it was not a case of sudden provocation--he has agreed that it could though A be grave. On the question of sentence also the sister of the accused having been molested by the deceased, she had become pregnant.
5. In the circumstances of this case it is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused.