MUKHTAR AHMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the murder of his sister. The petitioner admitted to killing the deceased, claiming he acted under provocation due to her alleged loose moral character, which had caused him social embarrassment. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's actions fell within the scope of Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Supreme Court held that the conviction was sound, noting that the petitioner had nursed a grievance over a period of time and acted with deliberation, as evidenced by his sending the deceased's son away before committing the crime. The Court affirmed that the provocation was neither sudden nor grave enough to deprive the petitioner of self-control. The key principle laid down is that for the plea of grave and sudden provocation to succeed, the provocation must be immediate and overwhelming; a long-nursed grievance or premeditated act does not satisfy the requirements of Exception 1 to Section 300.
- Does a long-nursed grievance regarding a victim's moral character constitute grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a murder conviction be mitigated to culpable homicide not amounting to murder when the accused acted with deliberation?
- Is the act of removing witnesses from the scene of a crime evidence of premeditation negating the defense of sudden provocation?
- Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Au, J.-The petitioner killed his sister by striking her at first with an iron bar and then slaughtering her throat with a churri. He himself reported the incident to the police and made a judicial confession before a Magistrate in which he claimed that he had murdered his sister, because she was of loose moral character and his friends and relatives used to taunt him on her account.
2. ' The circumstances in which the crime took place left no doubt that the petitioner had acted with deliberation. The deceased was accompanied by her young son Muhammad Sharif, P. W.
2. The petitioner gave him two paisa's to go out and buy sweets. Soon after he had left, the petitioner attacked the deceased and killed her in the courtyard of his house. As no other motive for killing was attributed to the petitioner it could be said that there was an element of provocation in the commission of the crime, but since it was not sudden and grave so as to deprive the petitioner of power of self-control, the trial Judge held him guilty under section 302, P. P. C. And awarded him the lesser penalty of life imprisonment. The same view has prevailed in the High Court and the appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence has been dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal.
3. We have heard Mr. Nasiruddin in support of the petition and find no substance in any one of the pleas raised by him. At best it could be said that the petitioner had acted under grave provocation, but it is hard to find that the provocation was so sudden that the offence committed falls under Exception Ito section 300, P. P. C. The petitioner knew for quite some time that the deceased had become immoral. He himself says that his friends and relatives used to taunt him on account of his sister. It was thus a case of grievance which he had nursed for some time before he chose to kill his sister. In the circumstances the plea that the petitioner had acted because of grave and sudden provocation has been rightly discarded by the Courts below.
4. ' The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs BAHADUR AND 2 OTHERS 1984 P Cr. L J 1986
- MUHAMMAD HANIF vs THE STATE 1977 PLD Lahore 1253