' The legality of the judgment dated 13-2-1986 pronounced by Ch. Muhammad Amjad Khan, the then learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, has been assailed in this appeal, who had convicted the appellant under section 302 of the P.P.C. And had awarded him life imprisonment and a fine of Rs,5,000 for murdering Ghulam Mustafa on 10-11-1983 at Esha time within the area of village Nawa Aram, Police Station Saddar Khanpur, District Rahimyar Khan. In default of the payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer one year's R.I.The fine, if recovered, was directed to be paid by way of compensation to the heirs of the deceased as envisaged under section 544-A of the Cr.P.C. The benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C., was, however, granted to the appellant.
2. The facts, which led to this gruesome murder, in substance, are that Muhammad Akhtar appellant suspected illicit affections and guilty associations between his wife Mst. Mumtaz Mai and Ghulam Mustafa deceased. On snatched the dagger from him just after this incident, has given a consistenq statement that the appellant murdered Ghulam Mustafa on the suspicion that he was having illicit liaison with his wife. He is not a relative of any of the parties and has testified that Mst.
Mumtaz Mai was in the house of her father Ghulam Haider on that day and no quarrel took place between Akhtar and Ghulam Mustafa when he saw him there. He has admitted that at the time of this occurrence, the participants had gone away and besides the P.Ws, the appellant, Ghulam Mustafa and Ghulam Haider were present in the house. He has stated that Mst. Mumtaz Mai was not present in that room where Ghulam Mustafa was murdered. In his examination-in-chief, he has stated that somebody had gone to lodge the complaint, but in his cross-examination, he has explained that Mst. Sardar Mai had gone to the Police Station and got recorded the F.I.R.
8. Qamar Hussain S.I. P.W.10, who had conducted the investigation of this case, has stated that he had arrested the appellant, who was in the custody of Yaseen PW, and had removed the blood- stained shirt P.6, blood-stained Shalwar P.7 and the blood-stained woollen Chaddar P.8 from the person of Muhammad Akhtar accused and had made the same into sealed parcels.
9. In his statement recorded under section 342 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant, in response to question No,10, has explained as under:- "I was married to Mst. Mumtaz Mai about one year before the occurrence. She lived with me happily. I and the deceased were on visiting terms and had cordial relations. On the day of occurrence, I was present in the house of my father-in-law Ghulam Haider. My wife was present in her room. Ghulam Mustafa deceased alone came from Langi Bar at about noon time and he remained in our house. Mst. Sardar Mai and Farid Bakhsh had not come. At about Eshawela, I returned after distributing Khairat to different persons of Basti in connection with Chatti ceremony of my son which was held on the 6th day of his birth. I found that the outer door of the room where my wife was lying was half closed. I entered the room and found that Ghulam Mustafa was kissing my wife and holding her breast. I lost selfcontrol and balance of mind and under grave and sudden provocation, picked up a knife kept by the side of newly-born son and caused two injuries to him.
Nobody or P.W. Was present in the room. My sister, mother and brother caught hold of me when I tried to attack my wife who also ran from there. Ghulam Yaseen P.W. Was also not present there.
Ghulam Qadir P.W. Came to the spot after the occurrence and I told him the whole story who took me to the Police Station where I narrated this story to the police. Police called Mst. Sardar Mai from Langi Bar and made her the complainant in this case.The police twisted the entire story and falsely suppressed the material facts. I am innocent."
10. Mst. Sardar Mai, the complainant,lives at a distance of about thirty miles from the place of occurrence. Her participation and the participation of Ghulam Mustafa deceased in the Chatti ceremony of the grandson of Ghulam Haider has been proved. It has been stated by Ghulam Yaseen PW that he had apprehended the appellant on the spot with blood-stained dagger in his hand. He has also elucidated that the appellant attacked Ghulam Mustafa when the latter was sitting on an iron-chest.
11. The plea of grave and sudden provocation taken by the appellant needs scrutiny. The site-plan shows that there are two rooms in the house of Ghulam Haider and both the rooms are linked by a door. Ghulam Mustafa deceased was not expected to indulge in the nefarious act of making love to Mst. Mumtaz Mai in the presence of her parents and other guests. Secondly, to make love with a woman, who delivered a child six days back, is not probable. Thirdly, Mst. Mumtaz Mai was not hit at all when she was seen making love to Ghulam Mustafa. It is a matter of common observation that in such cases, the trite defence taken by the accused is that his wife ran away and he killed her paramour. It may also be noted that the appellant has stated that there was a knife lying by the side of his newly-born son and he caused two injuries with it. This plea has been belied by the fact that the dagger has been recovered from the appellant which evinces the element of premeditation in this case. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 302 of the P.P.C. And the sentence awarded to the appellant is also appropriate. The benefit of section 382-B of the Cr.P.C. Extended to the appellant shall continue. His appeal stands dismissed.