This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, whereby he on 22nd September, 1980, convicted the petitioner under section 304 (Part I), P. P. C.
And sentenced him to nine years' R. I. And a fine of Rs. 2,000 in default thereof to undergo six months' simple imprisonment, for causing the death of Muhammad Arshad on 1st October, 1977, at Asar Prayer time in the area of Chak No. 327'B of Police Station Sahuka.
2. The learned Sessions Judge in para. 6 of the judgment obser--ved ;- "Motive given in the F. I. R. Is that accused had suspicion about illicit liaison between his wife and the deceased. Mst. Bashiran the mother of the deceased admitted in express words that his deceased son ad illicit connection with Naziran the wife of the accused. It appears that the deceased had friendly relation with the accused. As already remarked the deceased would come in the house of the accused and sit with him gossiping. Mst. Naziran a young wife of the accused did not observe purdah from the deceased. It was through close associate and frequenting visits that the deceased thrust his avaricious eyes upon Mst. Naziran. It also sounds that both loved each other. Both were carrying on thus in a foul manner. It must be on the score of that connection that the accused wanted to chastise his wife. The deceased as a lover wanted to shield Mst. Naziran. He intervened to save her from physical beating. It is this juncture that prompted the accused to resort to violence. As a man of normal prudence he is expected to behave in that particular fashion. After all he had his own values and notions of honour and dignity. He could not tolerate the spectacle of intermeddling of a stranger into his conjugal affairs. It is thus deducible from the circumstances that the accused left the power of his self-control under the impact of grave and sudden pro-- vocation. He was in the heat of passions and thought it expedient to assault the person who was responsible for bringing disgrace to the family. I am not unmindful of the fact that no semen was detected on the clothes of Mst. Naziran or the deceased. I am also not obli--vious of the fact that the time of occurrence is not the time for committing sexual intercourse. The lovers must have selected another time and another place if they wanted to cohabit. Notwithstanding I find that mere presence of the paramour of his wife coupled with his action to separate Naziran from the clutches of the accused was in itself a factor sufficient to warrant acute provocation. I am clear in my mind that it was the deceased who gave provocation to the accused and at the time of occurrence the accused was completely dep--rived of the power of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation. I hold that exception one of section 300, P. P. C. Is available to the accused."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant informs that no appeal or revision against the impugned judgment has been filed by the State or the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the conviction. He simply requests for the reduction of the sentence. He sub--mits that in the circumstances of this case, the sentence of nine years R. I. And fine of Rs. 2,000 in default thereof further simple imprison--ment for six months is harsh and excessive one. He argues that the deceased, in fact, created the whole trouble by having illicit relations with the wife of the appellant.
5. I have considered the question of sentence carefully and am of the opinion that in view of the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that "mere presence of the paramour of his wife coupled with his action to separate Naziran from the clutches of the accused was in itself a factor sufficient to warrant acute provocation. I am clear in my mind that it was the deceased who gave provocation to the accused and at the time of occurrence the accused was completely deprived of the power of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation". The sentence awarded to the appellant is really harsh one and the same is reduced to four years' R. I. The fine of Rs. 2,000 in default thereof simple imprisonment for six months is, however maintained. The result is that while maintaining the conviction of the appellant under section 304(1), P. P. C., he is sentenced to four years' R. I. With a fine of Rs. 2,000 and in default of payment, of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.
With this modification the appeal is disposed of.