1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This appeal, through special leave, calls in question the sentence of death awarded to the appellant for the double murder-one of the deceased, Mst. Aisha Mai was his wife, while the other Mst. Jindan Mai was the latter's younger sister. The sentence of death having been confirmed by the High Court on two counts, leave to appeal was granted to the petitioner to examine the question of sentence only, as to whether or not "the lesser sentence could be awarded to him for the reason that he inflicted only one stab wound on Mst. Jindan Mai after he had already lost self-control over his unfaithful wife and after she (Mst. Jindan Mai) came forward to intervene for her sister". It was assumed that, as observed by the High Court, although the petitioner could be awarded lesser sentence for the murder of his wife, the question whether the sentence of death could be reduced with regard to Mst. Jindan Mai's murder needed consideration.
2. According to the prosecution, the appellant was married to Mst. Aisha Mai six or seven years prior to the occurrence; which took place on 3-8-1974 at about 10 a. m. In an open cotton field where Mst. Aisha Mai and Mst. Jindan Mai were cutting grass. The appellant had started suspecting Mst.
3. Aisha Mai having illicit connection with one Ghulam Rasul about a year prior to the occurrence.
4. However, a few days before 3-8-1974, he had turned her out on account of same suspicion. She then started residing with her brother Muhammad Sharif P. W. 7; who is an eye-witness and also the first informant.
5. The appellant had, according to the prosecution, concealed himself in a sugar cane field near the place of occurrence and when the two victims were cutting grass from the cotton field (the cotton crop had grown nearly two feet high) he attacked first Mst. Aisha Mai and when Mst. Jindan Mai tried to save her sister, she was also injured. The four eye-witnesses, namely, Muhammad Sharif, complainant, Ahmad Yar, Imam Bakhsh and Ghulam Asghar P. Ws. Who were present at the spot intervened, caught hold of the appellant and snatched the chhuri from him. The appellant had also small wounds on his right band and fingers and one of his left thumb. The dimensions of the three injuries on the person of Mst. Aisha Mai were: a stab wound 1 I' x 1 /2' x chest cavity deep on the front of the chest; an incised wound 1' x I/2' x muscle cut on the left buttock and an incised wound 1' x 1/2' x muscle cut on the front of left forearm. The first injury had severely damaged vital organs, which caused the death. The fatal injury on Mst. Jindan Mai was an incised wound 1' x 1/2' x going deep to the left chest cavity. Clavicle bone was partially cut. The doctor had not taken the vaginal swabs when examining the dead body of Mst. Aisha Mai with the explanation that there was no external signs to justify any such examination.
6. The chhuri and the clothes which the appellant was wearing at the time of occurrence were, according to the reports of the Chemical Examiner/ serologist, found to be stained with human blood.
7. The appellant admitted having caused the death of both the victims with the following explanation: " . ....On the day of occurrence, I was going through the fields when I observed that Mst. Jindan, my sister-in-law was standing near the place of occurrence. I became suspicious and thought that she was standing there as a watch. When I enquired from her about her stay, she started abusing me. I entered the field and saw my wife Mst. Aisha having sexual intercourse with Ghulam Rasul. I tried to catch hold of Ghulam Rasul, but he inflicted injuries on me with a `chhuri'. The chhuri with which he was giving me injuries fell on the ground and Ghulam Rasul ran away leaving `chhuri' at the spot."
8. Both the learned trial Court as at...o the High Court disbelieved the appellant's version with regard to presence of Ghulam Rasul near the spot or for that matter, his having been found in sexual act with Mst. Aisha Mai at the time of occurrence. The prosecution version having been believed in its entirety, the appellant was awarded the sentence of death on two counts.
9. The learned Judges of the High Court when dealing with the question of sentence expressed the following view:- We have .Carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel but we do not find any substance in them. It is evident from the record that the appellant had inflicted injuries to his wife and the sister of his wife aged 16 years was also murdered by the appellant when she came forward in order to rescue her sister. Had the appellant only murdered his wife because he had suspected her fidelity, a case might have been made out for awarding of lesser penalty. But certainly he had no justification in murdering a 16 years . Old sister of his wife who tried to save her sister. In this background we are not inclined to agree with learned counsel and do not regard it a case in which lesser penalty should be awarded to the appellant. Consequently we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case as against the appellant and in the circumstances his conviction as well as sentence were quite proper and well-deserved and are accordingly maintained "
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two arguments: one, that the appellant having seen Mst. Aisha Mai with Ghulam Rasul, her paramour in an objectionable position, lost self-control and killed her. He further submitted, that Mst. Jindan Mai the younger sister of Mst. Aisha Mai was helping the lovers in pursuing illicit connection therefore her killing as also that of Mst. Aisha Mai was covered by Exception I to section 300, P. P. C. Because it was a sequal to the latter's killing. And, two, that in any case if the appellant's version is not accepted and the case is decided on the basis of the motive asserted ,from the prosecution side, the sentence of death awarded for the murder of Mst. Aisha Mai merits reduction on the ground that the appellant was driven to the extreme act by the factors of honour which constitute this motive for her murder, while the murder of Mst. Jindan Mai on the same basis being relatable to the same motive should not be visited with extreme penalty. In any case, he further submitted, only one injury having been inflicted on her accidentally as the last violent act on the part of the appellant in his fit of rage, extreme penalty should not have been exacted from him.
11. The defence plea regarding application of Exception I to section 300, P. P. C. Has rightly been rejected by the trial Court and the High Court. There is no justification to re-open this aspect on which leave was refused. There is enough authority however, for the proposition that in the circum- -stances as in the present case when the motive asserted from the prosecution side is relatable to the continuance of illicit connection by the appellant' A wife, lesser of the two sentences can be awarded for her murder. In this case there is no impediment in accepting the plea in so far as the murder o Mst. Aisha Mai is concerned. We accordingly reduce the sentence awarded to the appellant. In that behalf to imprisonment for life.
12. The question with regard to Mst. Jindan Mai's murder, however, stands on a different footing. After careful perusal of the evidence we do not agree with the learned counsel that the solitary injury was inflicted on her by the appellant accidentally in a fit of rage when she tried to save her sister from attack. The nature, location and the force with which the blow was inflicted on Mst. Jindan Mai as also the dimension of the chhuri clearly indicate that it was a deliberate blow in order to cause intentional harm to Mst. Jindan Mai. The depth of the injury as also the force used which resulted in partial cutting of the clavicle bone, would further support the above supposition. The mere fact that Mst. Jindan Mai suffered solitary blow as last act on the part of the appellant would, in the circumstances of this case, not show that it was accidental or mere incidental. It appears that even during the attack on Mst. Aisha Mai, Mst. Jindan Mai made efforts to stop the appellant-it was so stated by the eye-witnesses also. It was when the appellant realised that Mst. Jindan might effectively stop him from killing Mst. Aisha Mai, it would be reasonable to conclude, he removed the hindrance by giving a violent blow to her, which was obviously intentional and which he must have also known, would result in her death. The injuries suffered by the appellant on his two hands and their dimensions are also c indicative of the fact that Mst. Jindan Mai must have made efforts to stop the appellant from causing harm (or further harm) to Mst. Aisha Mai, The injuries suffered by the appellant typically indicate that they were suffered by him when handling his own chhuri m a forcible opposition put up by the helper of the deceased Mst. Jindan Mai. We are of the view that Mst. Jindan Mai's murder was deliberate. There was not even a semblance of justification, therefore, the sentence of death on that count, cannot be reduced.
13. The argument that whenever an accused acts under rage on account of loss of self-control and commits murder with same amount of justification, it would furnish a ground for viewing another murder committed as a sequal to the first one, with same justification, cannot be accepted as a general proposition applicable to all cases. It depends upon the facts and D circumstances of each case which might require closer examination, amongst others; of the nature of the motive and intention for the initial and subsequent killings, preparation, the time gap between them, the nature of the weapon used and the relationship of the victims inter se. The cases of Fazal Khan v.
14. The State (1), and Sherdil and another v. The State (2), are clearly distinguishable. The present case is somewhat similar to Muhammad Din alias Manna v. The State (3). We have held that as the murder of Mst. Jindan Mai, in the circumstances already noticed, was deliberate and absolutely unjustified, the appellant cannot seek any benefit of the considerations which have weighed with us for awarding lesser sentence regarding the murder of Mst. Aisha Mai. The plea with regard to Mst. Jindan Mai's murder, therefore, is rejected.
15. (1)PLD1964SC54(2)1980PCr.LJ919
(3) 1976 SCMR 185 This appeal is partly allowed. The sentence awarded to the appellant under section 302, P. P. C. For the murder of Mst. Aisha Mai is reduced to imprisonment for life while no justification having been found for reducing the sentence of death awarded to him for the murder of Mst. Jindan Mai, it is maintained on that count.