1. Opinion of first Judge ' S.A. NUSRAT, J.-- This petition for leave to appeal is from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 12-3-1980 and is barred by 415 days. An application for condonation of delay has, however, been made.
2. ' The petitioner was convicted for the murder of his wife Mst. Laila by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan by Judgment, dated 30-10-1977 under section 302, P.P.C. And awarded sentence for imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,2,000 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
3. ' The occurrence took place at 7-00 a.m., on 8-8-1976 near square No,14, Tehsil Kabirwala. Allandad, Chowkidar of the Chak who was passing by the said square was attracted by some noise and on reaching the direction from which it came, he found the petitioner inflicting knife injuries on the deceased. Muhammad P.W. 8 and Falak Sher, P.W.9, who were present in the nearby field also witnessed the incident. The petitioner was overpowered and apprehended with blood-stained knife in his hand on the spot.
4. ' The prosecution in support of its case relied upon the ocular evidence of Allandad, Muhammad and Falak Sher as also the evidence with regard to the recovery of blood-stained knife. The motive set forth by the prosecution was that the petitioner suspected that the deceased had illicit intimacy with one Gul Muhammad, Christian, and, therefore, had caused the murder. This version regarding motive was supported by Allah Dad, P.W.7 and was also admitted by the petitioner in his statement. The petitioner's statement before the tiral Court was as follows:- "My wife Mst. Laila had developed illicit relations with one Gul Muhammad Christian. On the day of occurrence before 7 a.m. I saw her in compromising position with the said Gul Muhammad Christian at the spot. On seeing I at the spot Gul Muhammad Christian ran away leaving behind his knife at the spot. I lost myself-control and under grave and sudden provocation I picked up the knife and gave blows to the deceased as a result of which she died at the spot. Nobody witnessed the occurrence. I was arrested by the Thanedar from my Chak."
5. ' The petitioner in his petition for leave to appeal has reiterated that he suspected that his wife had developed illicit relations with Gul Muhammad, Christian, and since on the day of occurrence, he had seen them in a compromising position, he lost his self-control and balance of mind and had attacked the deceased. While, Gul Muhammad escaped, his wife died at the spot. According to him, the incident was not witnessed by any one, and he had caused the murder of his wife on account of Ghairat.
6. ' The eye-witness account furnished by the three witnesses named above was accepted by the trial Court alongwith the evidence regarding recovery of blood-stained knife and motive. None of the eye-witnesses had seen the deceased in compromising position with Gul Muhammad Christian, or even seen Gul Muhammad at the scene of occurrence and the suggestion put to them in this behalf in cross-examination by the defence was categorically denied. In awarding the sentence the trial Court took the view that the offence was committed by the petitioner on suspicion that his wife had liaison with Gul Muhammad, Christian. In the circumstances the extreme penalty of death was not awarded and the petitioner as awarded sentence of life imprisonment.
7. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the learned High Court and have perused the evidence on the record. In my opinion, it is not a fit case for interference as the petitioner was apprehended with the blood-stained knife on the spot and the crime was witnessed by three eye-witnesses, who had no motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. In fact the petitioner had himself admitted the commission of crime but pleaded for leniency for the reason mentioned in his statement. The plea of Ghairat set up by the petitioner was duly considered by the learned trial Court while awarding the sentence as mentioned above. I would, therefore, dismiss this petition without going into the question of limitation.
8. ' Zaffar Hussain Mirza, J. I agree.