SOHBAT KHAN vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the convict against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, which affirmed his conviction and death sentence for the double murder of his wife and mother-in-law using a TT pistol, while altering the conviction from Section 302(a) to Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question raised was whether the petitioner was entitled to a reduction or mitigation of his sentence from capital punishment based on his consistent plea of acting under sudden and grave provocation due to his suspicion regarding his wife's character and her mother's alleged connivance. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to examine whether, under the peculiar circumstances of the case and established principles for the appraisal of evidence in criminal cases, the sentence ought to be mitigated and whether the High Court's judgment could be sustained in law regarding the quantum of sentence.
- Whether a consistent plea of sudden and grave provocation warrants mitigation of the death sentence to a lesser penalty under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 302(a), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302(b), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitoner-convict seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 29-1- 2001, rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, confirming his conviction and sentence for the murders of his wife Mst. Bibi Fatima and his mother-in-law Mst. Jan Bibi committed on 9-6-1999 by means of TT pistol.
2. The facts of the case appear to be that after committing the above said two murders, petitioner alongwith the crime weapon appeared before Asad Khan Nasir, S.H.O. Police Station Quaidabad, Quetta, with version of the incident that he suspected illicit relationship of his wife Mst. Bibi Fatima with Muhammad Ali and Ali Nawaz. As regards his mother-in-law, his stance was that she being fully aware of the said affair had been abetting and shielding his wife, leading to the frustration. On the fateful day he had expressed reservations about the character of his wife, whereupon she used abusive language and insulted him. His mother-in-law also joined his wife in compounding the sudden and grave provocation. According to the petitioner there was a sudden flare up leading to firing by him on his wife as well as his mother-in-law within the precincts of his house.
3. S.H.O. Proceeded to the scene of occurrence as pointed out by the petitioner. He recovered the dead bodies of the deceased and referred them for post-mortem examination. During the course of investigation a child witness, namely, Amir Muhammad aged about 5 years gave eye-witness account of the incident. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and produced Chemical Examiner's Report in positive.
4. Petitioner in, his statement did not deny the occurrence but claimed that he acted under sudden and grave flare up in the background of his genuine suspicion with regard to objectionable character of his wife and connivance of his mother-in-law. He examined himself on oath as well to substantiate his plea.
5. On conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Quetta, found him guilty of the charge under section 302(a), P.P.C. And sentenced to death. In appeal as well as Murder Reference, a Division Bench of the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, but altered the conviction from section 302 (a) to 302(b), P.P.C.
6. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti, learned, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and gone through the record as well as the impugned judgments. On a careful scanning of the evidence on record coupled with admission of the occurrence by the petitioner himself, we are convinced that finding of guilt recorded against him does not suffer from any legal or factual infirmity. After arguing out at sufficient length, learned counsel also conceded that he is not in a position to controvert the findings of fact as to the guilt of the petitioner. He, however, pressed into service his submission for leave to consider reduction of the sentence on the premises that the case of the petitioner would call for lesser penalty and not the capital punishment as held by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court.
7. After hearing learned counsel and in view of the consistent plea of the petitioner from the day one that he had committed the murders under sudden and grave provocation, we grant leave to appeal to consider whether in the peculiar circumstances of the case the petitioner is not entitled to mitigation of sentence and whether the impugned judgment can be sustained in law in view of the principles for appraisal of evidence laid down by this Court in criminal cases.