KHALIL AHMED vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the petitioner against his conviction for the murder of Muhammad Riaz and for causing injury to Muhammad Boota. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code was sustainable given his defense that the deceased was injured during a scuffle and his claim of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court observed that there were two eye-witnesses, and despite their relationship to the deceased, their testimony was credible given the lack of prior enmity. The Court rejected the petitioner's version of the scuffle, noting that the fatal injury was not consistent with his account. While acknowledging evidence that the deceased had made objectionable remarks about the petitioner's sister-in-law, the Court held that this did not constitute sufficient grounds for the plea of grave and sudden provocation. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition, noting that the petitioner had already received the benefit of a lesser sentence, and refused to grant leave to appeal.
- Can the testimony of eye-witnesses who are related to the deceased be relied upon in the absence of prior enmity?
- Does the passing of objectionable remarks against a relative constitute grave and sudden provocation sufficient to mitigate a murder charge?
- Is a claim that a deceased was injured by their own knife during a scuffle credible when contradicted by the nature of the fatal injury?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is a petition through jail. The petitioner has been convicted of the offence under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, for causing the death of Muhammad Riaz deceased and of the offence under section 324, Pakistan Penal Code, for using an injury to Muhammad Boota (P.W.8).
2. There are two eye-witnesses of the occurrence. One of them is Muhammad Biota (P.W.8) and the other is Nazir Ahmad (P.W.7), father of Muhammad Riaz, deceased. The parties are close neighbors and there is no history of enmity between them at all. There is, therefore, no reason why the statements of the eye-witnesses should not be believed even though they are closely related to the deceased.
3. The petitioner did not deny his participation in the occurrence at the trial. However, he claimed that the deceased was hurt with his own knife during a scuffle with him. It is difficult to accept his version with regard to the manner in which the deceased received the only injury on his body which proved to be fatal. The assertion of the petitioner that just before the occurrence the deceased had passed some objectionable remarks against his sister-in-law finds support from the record. It is, therefore, not possible to give him the benefit of the plea of grave and sudden provocation. He has already been given the benefit of the lesser sentence in so far as the offence under section 302, ibid, is concerned. In my opinion this is not a fit case where leave to appeal should be granted.
' I agree.
(Sd.)