SHAUKAT ALI, J.-Adil (36) and his father Khan (51), were tried under section 302/34, P. P. C., for the murder of Khan, their co-villager in furtherance of their common intention on the 22nd of July 1967, at about 9 p.m., in their dhari in the 'area of village Sohna Paroka. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Sahiwal, who tried them, acquitted Khan of the charge and found Adil guilty under section 362, P. P. C., and ordered him to suffer death: The condemned person has appealed and the case is also before us under section 374, . Cr: P. C., for the confirmation of the sentence of death. We propose to dispose of the appeal and the reference for confirmation of the death sentence by this judgment.
2. The prosecution ,story, briefly narrated, is that Mst. Manzooran wife of the appellant had eloped with one Ghulam Facid. The appellant and, his father suspected that 'the deceased had a hand in the elopement. On the 22nd of July- 1967, at the instance of the accused a panchayat was convened at the dera of one Fazil, which wars attended by Amir, Daulat, Muhammad Ali, Noor, Shahadat P. Ws., Khan deceased, the accused and the said Fazil. The accused apprised the panchayat that Mst. Manzooran was with Ghulam Farid, whereupon Fazil assured the panchayat that Mst. Manzooran would be restored to her husband the following day. After the panchayat was over Khan deceased along with Amir P. W. Set out for Darbar of Muhammad Shah to see their maternal uncle- Ghulam P. W. Thereafter, they proceeded for their houses. When they reached near the dhari of the accused they called them. The deceased and Amir P. W. Went there. The accused caught hold of Khan deceased and chained him. Amir P; W. Raised alarm. Meanwhile, Adil appellant brought out a toka from his but and started inflicting blows with it on Khan deceased which landed on his head and face. Khan accused encouraged Adil to accomplish his mission. The alarm attracted Daulat, Muhammad Ali, Ghulam, Noor .And Shahadat to the spot who witnessed the occurrence. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The accused did not escape and on enquiry by the witnesses told them that they had killed the, deceased as he had a hand in the elopement of, Mst. Manzooran.
Amir and Daulat P. Ws. Proceeded to Police Station Gogera, which is at a distance of four miles from the place of occurrence, where Amir P. W. Lodged the report Exh. P. A. At 11-30 p.m. Which was recorded by Sub-Inspector Pirzada Nazir Ahmad P. W.
12. The Sub-Inspector reached the spot at 12- 30 a.m., the same night. He found the dead body lying in the courtyard of the accused. He prepared the injury statement and the inquest report and despatched the dead body to the mortuary for post-mortem examination. He arrested both the accused. Adil appellant produced blood-stained toka P. 1, which was taken into possession and made into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. B. .At the the of arrest, Adil was wearing blood-stained clothes. The Sub-Inspector got removed from his person blood-stained shirt t'. 2, chaddar P. 3, safa P. 4, and a pair of shoes P. 5 and made them into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. C. He collected blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence and made it into a sealed parcel vide memo. Exh. P. D.
3. Doctor Muhammad Asghar, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Okara, conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Khan on the 23rd of July 1967, at 4-20 p.m. And found twelve incised wounds thereon.
The injuries were on the skull, cheek, jaw, neck and right hand. Death in the opinion of the doctor was due to external haemorrhage caused by the injuries on the right side of the neck. All these injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
4. The appellant when examined stated that Khan deceased was a pimp of Farid and that he abducted his wife and handed her over to Farid. He stated that he had produced blood-stained toka P. 1, clothes P. 2 to P. 4 and the pair of shoes P. 5 before the Sub-Inspector. As to the incident he stated as follows :- "I inquired the whereabouts of my wife from Khan deceased but he prevaricated. I chained him and told him that I will set him free if he gives me the whereabouts of my wife. He started abusing me and said that he would give the whereabouts after Mst. Manzooran, my wife, became pregnant. His remarks were highly insulting. I got highly provoked and acting under very grave and sudden provoca--tion gave him blows with the toka which was lying close by. My father Khan was in the village at the the of occurrence. All the P. Ws. Are made up witnesses and they have given false evidence."
5. The prosecution in support of its case relied on the oral testimony of Amir P. W. 2, Daulat P. W. 3 and Muhammad Ali P. W. 4, the recovery of blood-stained toka, clothes and the pair. Of shoes of the appellant. It is true that Amir and Muhammad Ali P. Ws. Are the close relations of the deceased and Daulat P. W. Is their landlord, but the mere fact that the witnesses are relations of the deceased or interested cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. The trial Court considered this evidence sufficiently reliable for convicting the appellant. A perusal of the statements of these eye- witnesses show that there is nothing in the cross-exami--nation which may suggest that Amir, Daulat and Muhammad Ali P. Ws. Had any particular reason to be inimical to the appellant or to implicate him falsely. No suggestion was made to these witnesses of being inimical to the appellant. There is nothing in the cross-examination to discredit their evidence. The presence -of Amir P. W. At the spot is quite natural. He was accompanying the deceased after the dispersal of the panchayat. Daulat and Muhammad Ali P. Ws. Were attracted to the spot by the alarm. Their dharis are close to the dhari 'of the appellant. As such, their presence at the spot is quite natural.
Amir P. W. Described the assault upon the deceased in some detail. He could not have done this if he was not present at the scene of the occurrence and saw the occurrence himself, particularly when the injuries mentioned by tally with the medical evidence. 1f corroboration was required of his evidence, it was furnished by the evidence of Muhammad Ali and Daulat P. Ws. And the recovery of toka, clothes and the pair of shoes of the appellant which according to the report (Exh. P. M.) of the Serologist were stained with Human blood. There is nothing to make out the prosecution evidence doubtful which has been detailed above, and we have no hesitation in accepting that it was the appellant who inflicted toka blows on the deceased.
6. After carefully examining the evidence we have come to the conclusion that the eye-witnesses are truthful and gave consistent evidence. The testimony of these eye-witnesses is of straightforward character which has in no manner been shaken in cross-examination. Therefore, we hold that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the incident which resulted in the death of Khan occurred in the manner and at the the and place mentioned by the prosecution witnesses.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant did not seriously challenge the conviction but stoutly urged for the reduction of the sentence. He urged that the appellant suspected that the deceased acted as a pander for Farid and had a hand in the abduction of his wife. It is in evidence that immediately after the crime the appellant told the witnesses- that the deceased was responsible for the elopement. Of his wife Mst. Manzooran. We have in evidence that Farid and Mst. Manzooran are not traceable. The suspicion-of the appellant cannot be said to be unfounded that the deceased had a hand in the elopement of his wife. This conduct of the deceased must have caused agony to the appellant. It is a case where the appellant had been driven to commit the crime. Not by his evil and reckless disposition or bad motive, but he might have been induced to do it on account of the misconduct of the deceased. In this case, there was no premeditation on the part of the appel-- lant. The number of injuries on .The deceased go to show that the appellant was highly excited at the the of the inci--dent. It appears that he lost his balance of mind and the sudden impulse proved to strong for him to resist and it was under that impulse that he acted quite abnormally and committed this at in a moment of extreme excitement. We may with advantage refer to the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ajun Shah v. The State (PLD 1967SC:185) where their Lordships delivered as follows :-- "A man is after all a creature of his environment. His action, therefore, must be judged in the background of the society to which he belonged. Though he may not be entitled to rely on the doctrine of provocation, still the above circumstances may be taken into account for not impos-- ing the extreme penalty-
8. For the foregoing reason we are of opinion that it is not really a proper case for the extreme penalty provided for the offence under section 307, P. P. C. This case does call for leniency. In this view of the matter, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to transportation for life. The sen-- tence of death is not confirmed. With this modification in the sentence the appeal is dismissed and the reference is also rejected.