SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The appellant, Imam Din (aged 80 years), resident of Sanda Kalan, has been convicted by an Additional Sessions Judge at Lahore of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code for causing the death of his wife, Mst. Hayat Bibi. For this offence he has been sentenced to death and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500 or, in default thereof, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. He was also tried for making a murderous assault on his daughter, Mst. Safia (P. W. 2), but was acquitted of this charge. He has filed this appeal against his conviction and sentence through Jail and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has also made a reference to this Court for the confirmation of the sentence of death imposed upon him. This judgment will dispose of both these matters.
2. The appellant and the deceased had four children. Two of the children were daughters. Mst. Safia (P. W. 2) was the elder of the two daughters and was about fifteen years of age at the time of occurrence. The appellant wanted to give her in marriage to some one living at Machiwala in District Gujrat but the deceased was opposed to this arrange--ment. The differences between the spouses over the matter had embittered their relations inter se. They already had quarrelled twice prior to the occurrence.
3. According to the prosecution, on 13th October. 1977 at about 10 30 a. m., the appellant and the deceased one again quarrelled over the betrothal of Mst. Safia (P. W. 2). During the course of the quarrel the appellant went inside a room to get a churri. Sensing the intention of the appellant the deceased walked out of the house. The appellant followed her, overtook her at a distance of 25 karams from the house and started giving her churri blows Inayat (P. W. 1). Brother of the deceased.
Mst. Safia (P. W. 2) and Wallayat who were present in the house ran to the rescue of the deceased.
They were joined by Ashraf (P. W. 3) and one Shah Mohammad. While trying to protect her mother Mst. Safia (P. W. 2) also received a churri blow in her abdomen. After inflicting a number of blows on the deceased the appellant started to run. He was followed by Inayat (P. W. 1), Ashraf (P. W. 3) and Shah Mohammad, Maqsood Ahmad (P. W. 5), foot-constable, who was patrolling in the ilaqa overpowered the appellant and took away the churri from him. Police Inspector Mohammad Raza (P. W. 6) also arrived at the place where the appellant was being held. He recorded the statement (Exh. P. A.) of Inayat (P. W. 1). On the basis of this statement a case was later on registered at Police Station Mozang.
4. After recording the statement of Inayat (P. W. 1), Police Inspector Mohammad t
5. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was performed by Dr. Farid Bakhsh Qureshi who was posted as medical officer in the office of Police Surgeon at Lahore. He left Pakistan before the trial could begin. The post-mortem examination report prepared by him was proved by his Dispenser Syed Abdul Sattar (P. W. 9) who was acquainted with his handwriting. According to report the deceased had nine injuries on her body. These consisted of six incised and three stab wounds located on both sides of chest, right thigh and both arms. One of the stab wounds in the chest was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the opinion of the doctor the deceased had died within a few minutes of the receipt of injuries.
6. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. He denied that he was responsible for causing the death of the deceased. He alleged that Inayat (P. W. 1) Wanted Mst. Safia to marry one Zaman who was his sister's son. He was not agreeable to this proposal and for that reason lnayat (P. W. 1) had quarrelled with him on a number of occasions. On the day of occurrence Inayat (P. W. 1) had quarrelled with him on a number of occasions. On the day of occurrence Inayat (P. W.
1) again visited his house and insisted that the decision should be taken with regard to the marriage of Mst Safia (P. W. 2) with Zaman. When he again rejected the suit of Zaman, Inayat stood up and brought out a churri. The deceased stepped forward to rescue him. As a result she received a number of churri blows at the hands of lnayat (P. W. 1) and fell down on the ground. As he was about to lift her clothes got stained with blood. He did not lead any defence in support of his version.
7. At the trial the prosecution examined Inayat (P. W. 1), Mst. Safia (P. W. 2) and Ashraf (P. W. 3) as eye-witnesses of the occurrence. Mst. Wallayat and Shah Mohammad who were also cited as eye- witnesses of the F. I. R. Were given up by the prosecution as unnecessary. Inayat (P. W. 1) and Mst.
Safia (P. W. 2) stated that they had seen the appellant giving churri blows to the deceased just outside her house in the street. Ashraf (P. W. 3) deposed that he went to the scene of occurrence on hearing alarm at his shop. He saw the appellant standing with a churri near the deceased who was in an injured state. When he stepped forward to snatch the churri from the appellant the latter issued some threats to him.
8. Mst. Safia (P.W. 2) and Ashraf (P. W. 3) are natural witnesses of the occurrence, Mst. Safia (P. W. 2) resided in the very house where her parents lived. The shop of Ashraf (P. W. 3) is at a distance of 10/15 yards from the house of the appellant. The occurrence took place at a time when his shop would ordinarily be open. Inayat (P. W. 1) lived at a distance of 1-- square in another locality.
Although the statement of Mst. Safia (P. W. 21 tends to give the impression that Inayat (P. W. 1) reached the scene of occurrence after it was over the appellant in his own statement admitted the presence of this witness also at the spot at the relevant time. As already mentioned the case of the appellant is that it was Inayat (P. W. 1) who had killed his wife. Even if the testimony of Inayat (P. W.
1) is excluded from consideration there is no reason at all why the evidence of Mst. Safia (P. W. 2) and Ashraf (P. W. 3) should be discarded. Ashraf (P. W. 3) is entirely a disinterested witness and it is most unlikely Oat Mst. Safia (P. W. 2) would falsely accuse her own father of the murder of her mother. Their evidence finds support from the statement of F. C. Maqsood Ahmad (P. W. 5) who saw the appellant running away from the scene of occurrence with a churri in his hand. F. C.
Maqsood Ahmad (P. W. 5) is also an independent witness and he bad also no reason to falsely implicate the appellant. Police Inspector Mohammad Raza (P. W. 6) found the appellant wearing blood-stained shirt and shoes within a short time of the occurrence. Taking all this evidence in to consideration we have no doubt whatsoever that it was the appellant who had caused the death of the deceased.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that on prosecu--tion own showing the attack on the deceased was preceded by a quarrel between her and the appellant. He contended that the appellant being the husband of the deceased was her 'majazi Khuda'. The deceased must have said something to him which provoked him into attacking her. He referred to the case of Krishna Chandra Patti v. Emperor (AIR 1929 Pat. 201) and argued that the case of the appellant fell within Exception 1 to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code. On going through the record we find little basis in support of the contention of the learned counsel. There is no doubt that there had been a quarrel between the spouses immediately e before the occurrence but a mere quarrel by itself would hardly furnish a justification to the appellant even though he was her 'majazi Khuda' to kill the deceased. There is no evidence whatsoever that the quarrel was invited by the deceased or during the course of the quarrel she had said or done something which could provoke the appellant. During the cross--examination of Mst. Safia (P. W. 2) and Inayat (P. W. 1) not even a suggestion was made that the deceased had given any offence of whatsoever nature to the appellant. The deceased being the mother of Mst. Safia (P. W. 2) was entitled to express her sentiments on the choice of the future husband of her daughter. Merely because her views in the matter did not coincide with those of her husband, would not give a licence to the husband to take away her life. The case of Krishna Chandra Patti is easily distinguishable. In that case the husband had asked for a ---pan--- from his wife. Instead of giving a 'pan' the wife threw some dirty water on the face of the husband. The husband in retaliation bashed her face with a heavy stone. There is no such mitigating circumstance present in this case. Here, in order to end the quarrel the deceased walked out of the house. Even then the appellant did not let her off. We are, therefore of the view that the case of the appellant does not fall within Exception I to section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
10. For the reasons stated above we are satisfied that the appel--lant was rightly convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. e Wsee no reason why he should be awarded the lesser penalty provided by law for the said offence.
The appellant followed a defenceless woman out of the house and inflicted many as nine injuries on her. He must there--fore suffer the normal penalty provided by the law for the offence.
Accordingly, we confirm the sentence of death imposed upon him by the learned trial Court. The sentence of fine is also appropriate. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.