Pervaiz Inayat Malik, J.--Appellant Allah Ditta son of Shaban was tried by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khanewal in case FIR No, 164/2202 dated 1.6.2002 for offence under Section 302 PPC registered at Police Station Saddar Khanewal for committing Qatl-i-Amd of Mst. Amiran, Mst.
Pathanu Mai and Waseem found him guilty under - Section 302(b) PPC and awarded him death penalty on three counts with compensation of Rs, 1,00,000/- on each count to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
2. It is inter-alia contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was a case of no evidence at all and prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellant. Adds that so called confessional statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not fulfill the legal requirements and is violative of the High Court Rules and Orders and inasmuch as certain vitally important questions were not put to the appellant/accused. Further adds that date of arrest and recording of confessional statement are also contradictory; that statements of prosecution witnesses are full of discrepancies and contradictions on the basis whereof it would be highly unsafe to award any penalty in particular maximum penalty of death, that deceased Mst. Ameeran was his wife, whereas Mst. Pathanu Mai is sister-in-law of the appellant, real sister of Mst. Ameeran Bibi deceased and deceased Waseem was his minor son and that even if there was any dispute with Mst. Ameeran Bibi how could he kill his own son (minor) Waseem deceased and that it was in fact an unseen occurrence. His other limb of argument is that at the most it was a case of sudden provocation as appellant suspected illicit relations of Mst. Ameeran with other persons and that since the appellant had acted under impulse of grave and sudden provocation therefore deserves leniency and death penalty awarded to him may be converted into life imprisonment.
3. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General while supporting the impugned judgment and conviction submits that prosecution has successfully proved its case and that even if there are some discrepancies these are not of substantial nature and that appellant himself confessed his guilt before the learned Judicial Magistrate which was voluntary in nature.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The minute examination of record, the evidence of prosecution as well as defence version, if put in juxta position leave no A doubt in our mind that prosecution has proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt. We find that appellant from the registration of the case had been changing his stances. Admittedly all the three deceased were closely related to him. The deceased Mst. Ameeran is his wife, Mst. Pathanu Mai is his sister-in-law and Waseem deceased is his minor son. He has failed to give any plausible explanation for even being absent from the house on the day of alleged occurrence. Even if his confessional statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. is not given much weight, the prosecution case stands proved. We also find that there was no element of grave and sudden provocation. It was in fact intentional murder. We may further observe that appellant if suspected the character of his wife he could under the law part ways with her. The - manner in which the occurrence has taken place depicts the desperate character of the appellant as well, who in our view does not deserve any leniency. The prosecution having proved its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt he was thus rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court which is hereby maintained. This appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
6. Murder reference is answered in AFFIRMATIVE. Death sentence is CONFIRMED.