1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-Leave to appeal was granted to Siddique, appellant, to consider the propriety of the extreme penalty of death awarded to him for the murder of his were Mst. Salima.
2. The facts briefly are that the appellant was married to Mst. Salima about two years prior to the occurrence. A child was born of the wedlock who died soon after. Mst. Salima also fell ill and came to the house of her parents for treatment. During this interval the appellant visited his parents-in- law twice and insisted that Mst. Salima should accompany him. Buta, the father of the deceased, however, declined to send her until she had fully recovered. On the 6th April 1966, the appellant came to see Mst. Salima and stayed with her for the night. On the 7th morning while Buta and his were had gone out to work the appellant at about 11 a.m. Attacked Mst. Salima with a hatchet and gave repeated blows with it on her left upper shoulder and scapular region which killed her there and then. The alarm raised by the deceased attracted some of the neighbors including Mst.
3. Rehmatay (P. W. 1), Sardara (P. W. 13) and Noor Muhammad (P. W.). On seeing them the appellant tried to escape taking away the hatchet with him, but was given pursuit by Sardara, Noor Muhammad, Ali Muhammad, Aziz and Amin P. Ws. In the chase these witnesses threw brick-bats at the appellant and also gave him a few sota blows. He was caught at a distance of one mile and brought back to the house of Buta and tied there to a tree where he remained until the Police came and took him into custody.
4. During the trial the appellant admitted having killed Mst. Salima with the hatchet, but claimed to have acted on grave and sudden provocation in that he had seen the deceased in a compromising position with Aziz, P. W. He at first wanted to attack Aziz, but as he succeeded in running away the appellant killed Mst. Salima.
5. The trial Judge disbelieved the plea of defence and sentenced the appellant to death under section 302, P. P. C. The High Court on appeal and reference reviewed the entire evidence and in the view that the conviction was well founded confirmed the sentence of death.
6. Leave to appeal was granted on a jail petition to consider the propriety of the sentence of death as there appeared no apparent motive for the murder except the stubbornness of the deceased to accompany the appellant to his house in spite of his repeated visits for that purpose. It was also considered possible that prior to the occurrence the deceased might have said something which provoked the appellant to kill her.
7. On examining the record we find that both the assumptions made in the order granting leave to appeal are not borne out. Firstly, there was no stubbornness on the part of the deceased to accompany the appellant. As seen she was ailing and had come to the house of her father for treatment. Secondly, it was Buta, father of the deceased, who insisted that she should stay back and not accompany the appellant for some time. The autopsy performed by Dr. Nisar Ahmad Kiani revealed traces of semen in the vagina of the deceased which indicated that she had subjected herself to carnal intercourse with the appellant. The deceased had thus given no cause for the annoyance of the appellant. Nor was there any evidence of an altercation having taken place before the appellant made the brutal attack on the deceased. He also did not adopt this position in his statement under section 342. In the circumstances it cannot be presumed that the deceased must have said something which provoked the appellant to kill her. No mitigating circumstances is, in the circumstances, made to appear for awarding the lesser penalty of transportation for life to the appellant.
8. Mr. R. A. Jeremy appearing for the appellant urged that as 31 years have passed since the crime was committed it is a fit case for reduction in the sentence. We are unable to agree with the counsel as delay in the disposal of cases has now become a normal feature of the administration of criminal justice in the Province. The appellant may, however, approach the Government by a petition under section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for commutation of sentence.
9. The appeal is dismissed.