1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.-- The petitioner stands convicted under section 302, P.P.C. For the murder of Bashir Muhammad and sentenced to death. He seeks leave against his conviction and sentence.
2. The incident occurred at mid-night on 1st of October, 1974, in the courtyard of the house of Wazir A.I, brother of the deceased, who was himself away to attend to his shift in the Mill. Before leaving he had requested the deceased to sleep in the house as he had a lurking suspicion that his wife Safia Bibi, was having a liaison with the petitioner, and that it was likely that the petitioner might visit her at night in his absence. His apprehension became a reality as the petitioner did come to the house.
3. The deceased caught hold of him. And while trying to rescue himself, he caused four injuries to the deceased with a Chhuri which he had brought with him. All the injuries were caused on the vital part of his body which resulted in his death. However, on his cries Muhammad Hussain (P.W. 5), his father, Muhammad Siddiq (P.W. 6), his uncle and Ghulam Nabi (P.W. 7) a son of the maternal-aunt of his father, were attracted to the place of occurrence besides Sarwar Bibi, Munawar Bibi, Muhammad Ashiq and, of course, Safia Bibi wife of Wazir A.I. Sarwar Bibi and Munawar Bibi were not examined as they were given up as unnecessary. Muhammad Ashiq and Safia Bibi were also not examined as they had been won over.
4. The petitioner was arrested at the spot and his blood-stained Chhuri, which was secured from him, was produced by Muhammad Siddiq. His blood-stained clothes, namely shirt, Shalwar and Banyan, were seized from his person and so also an identity card. He had 17 injuries on his person.
5. Muhammad Hussain, the complainant, who had lodged the report at 2-00 a.m. At the Police Station Kanah had also sustained three injuries with a blunt weapon. Blood-stained earth was secured from inside the courtyard.
6. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner said: "It was the month of Ramzan. 1 used to pass near the house of Wazir A.I every day after saying my Travi prayers. The complainant party had suspicion about my alleged illicit relations with Mst. Safia Bibi. On the night of occurrence when I was passing at about 9-00 p.m. From near the house of Wazir A.I after saying my prayers the deceased complainant and others who were armed with Lathis and knives caught hold of me and started belaboring me, and thereby received 18 injuries on my person. During the fight I snatched knife P.1 from one of them and gave injuries to the deceased with that knife in self-defence."
7. Though the plea of the petitioner was that he was belaboured in the street by the deceased and others and from one of them he had snatched a knife and caused the injuries with it to the deceased, yet there is no foundation in the evidence to sustain that he was, at all, belaboured in the street or that he snatched the knife from either the deceased or those who were attracted to the spot. If, at all, he was caused injuries in the street and in self-defence he had used the knife against the deceased then the blood should have been secured from a spot in the street, but that is not so. According to the evidence, the blood-stained earth was secured from inside the courtyard which belies the plea of the petitioner and supports the prosecution version that he was caught inside the house by the deceased, who in turn stabbed him to secure his release. There is overwhelming evidence against the petitioner which stands unrebutted. The Courts below have believed it and we find no l reason to disagree with the appreciation of the evidence.
8. As the petitioner himself committed trespass into the house of Wazir A.I to commit an act of adultery with Safia Bibi wife of Wazir A.I, he cannot plead self-defence against his own unlawful act.
9. The plea for lenient sentence is also in vain. He had stealthily come to the house at night to bring dishonour to the family by having intercourse with one of its female members, and if he was caught, he had no reason to cause fatal injuries to the deceased as even under the law the deceased was entitled to apprehend him. His act rather aggravated the offence.