ASGHAR ALI vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a decision of the Lahore High Court upholding the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and minor daughter, for which he was sentenced to death on two counts. The petitioner alleged grave and sudden provocation, claiming he intended to attack a third party found in a compromising position with his wife, who intercepted the assault. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the defense plea of grave and sudden provocation was plausible given the evidence and whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following a general presidential commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the presence of 18 injuries on the wife and 7 on the minor daughter contradicted the petitioner's version, and declined to grant the statutory benefit of period of detention under Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. due to the heinous nature of the crime.
- Can a plea of grave and sudden provocation be accepted when the medical evidence reveals numerous injuries inflicted upon multiple victims?
- Whether the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be withheld by the Court based on the extreme severity and brutal nature of the offense?
- Does the Supreme Court have discretion to condone delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal in a criminal matter involving the death penalty?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 26-4-1986 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Criminal Appeal No.586 of 1982/Murder Reference No 150 of 1982 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 2-10-1982 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, convicting the petitioner under Section 302, P.P.C. For murder of Rukhsana alias Shana (wife of the petitioner) and baby Shahnaz aged 2-1/2 to 3 years (minor daughter of the petitioner) and awarding him a sentence of death on two counts and a fine of Rs.500 on each count or in default further R.I. For six months, was dismissed and the murder reference was accepted.
2. The prosecution case was that the petitioner at the relevant time was jobless and whenever his wife demanded money for the household expenses, he used to give beating to her. Two or three days prior to the date of occurrence, the petitioner gave beating to his wife about which the latter complained to P.W6 Muhammad Ali PW6. Muhammad Ali whose house was situated about two furlongs and who was related to the petitioner brought about a compromise between the petitioner and his wife. On the night of incident, PW6 Muhammad Ali and his son Asif Ali, and PW7 Muhammad Anwar who was also the landlord of the petitioner, had gone to the house of the petitioner to resolve the above matter between the petitioner and his wife. They remained there till about 11.00 p.m. But when they came out of the petitioner's house, they heard shrieks from his house, on which they rushed back and saw the petitioner beating Rukhsana with a Danda. Upon seeing the above persons he threw away the said Danda but started inflicting injuries on his wife and his minor daughter with a scissors, as a result of which both of them died instantaneously. PW6 Muhammad Ali left for the Police Station leaving behind the aforesaid persons at the place of Wardat but while on his way, he came across S.I Muhammad Zaman PW 8 to whom he reported the occurrence by making statement ExPA. At 12.40 midnight. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector sent the said statement to the-Police Station for formal registration of the case but he himself proceeded to the spot and on reaching there, arrested the petitioner and secured from him blood-stained scissors P 6. He also secured blood-stained shirt and shalwar from the person of the petitioner Exs.P. 9 and P. 8 and blood-stained Danda Ex. P.
7. After completing investigation and other preliminaries, the case proceeded before the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, before whom a number of witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the two eye-witnesses P.W. 6 Muhammad Ali and P.W. 7, Muhammad Anwar. The petitioner in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. Came out with the plea that he saw his wife lying with P.W. 7, Muhammad Anwar on the same cot and that he wanted to kill P.W. 7, Muhammad Anwar and not his wife, but in order to save P.W. 7, Muhammad Anwar, the wife came in front of him and, therefore, received injuries and also the minor daughter. The above version of the petitioner was disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge and he was convicted and sentenced in the above terms, which conviction and sentence have been upheld by the High Court. The above petition is barred by time by 15 days but since it is a criminal matter, we condone the delay.
3. We have heard Mr. Tariq Azam Chaudhry, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioner, and have also gone through the record and we are of the view that the two Courts below have rightly disbelieved the petitioner's version, which apparently seems to be untrue. He inflicted as many as 18 injuries on his wife and 7 injuries on his minor daughter. If in fact the petitioner wanted to inflict injuries on P.W. 7, Muhammad Anwar and not on his wife and the minor daughter, so many injuries would not have been present on the person of the two deceased. The eye-witnesses' testimony seems to be natural and truthful.
4. Then it was contended by Mr. Tariq Azam Chaudhry that by virtue of the order of the President of Pakistan commuting the sentences of all convicts sentenced to death to life imprisonment, the petitioner is also entitled to the above concession and, therefore, he should be granted benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. We are not inclined to extend the above benefit as the petitioner is guilty of butchering his wife and his minor daughter without any plausible reason. Leave to appeal is accordingly, refused.