' This appeal, Criminal Revision No, 15 of 1986 and Criminal Revision No, 76 of 1986, which are being decided by means of this consolidated judgment, emerge out of the judgment, dated 25-1-1986 pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, who had convicted Shabbir Ahmad, the appellant, under section 302, P.P.C. And had awarded him imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs,5,000. In default of the payment of fine, he was directed to suffer three years' R.I. No compensation was awarded to the heirs of the deceased. Ishfaq, the accomplice of the appellant, was, however, acquitted. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant.
2. The facts which led to this gruesome murder, in substance, are that Shabbir Ahmad appellant had entertained suspicion in his mind that Muhammad Naseem was having amatorial ties with Mst. Sharifan, the wife of his real brother Muhammad Aslam. On 13-6-1983, Muhammad Saleem, the complainant and Muhammad Naseem, the deceased came home after attending to their ordinary chores of agriculture. Muhammad Naseem suggested that for having meal, he would bring vegetable from the shop of Ishfaq and he went there. Muhammad Saleem waited for him for some time and then he went after him at about 10-00 a.m. As soon as he reached near the shop of Ishfaq, be heard an alarm and saw Shabbir Ahmad appellant giving hatchet blows to Muhammad Naseem on his neck and thigh. Shabbir Ahmad threatened them with dire consequences. Naseem succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The incident was witnessed by Muhammad Hanif and Abdul Wahid. In order to slake the instinct of revenge, the appellant murdered Muhammad Naseem in the shop of Ishfaq.
3. The complainant proceeded towards the police station and met the Police Officer near Sanjarpur and he dictated the report there, which was recorded by Muhammad Saleem, S.I., who had expired.
The formal F.I.R. Exh.P.B./1 was drafted by Muhammad Akram Naib-Moharrir, Police Station Kot Sabzal on the same day.
4. The police went to the spot and collected the blood-stained earth from inside the shop of Ishfaq.
They prepared the injury statement and the inquest report in respect of Naseem deceased and sent his dead body for autopsy to the mortuary. The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Abdul Wahab P.W.6, who had listed the following injuries on his corpse:-
(1) An incised wound 7" x 2" x bone deep on the left side of face from the left side of bridge of nose to the left angle of mandible bone and blood vessels cut.
(2) An incised wound 7" x 4" x bone deep on the back and left side of the head and neck cutting the skull, blood vessels cervical vertebrae and spinal cord.
(3) An incised wound 5" x 3" x 3" deep on the front and outer side of left thigh upper part cutting the muscle nerve and blood vessels.
' This medical expert has opined that all the injuries were collectively and individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
5. Shabbir Ahmad appellant was arrested on 14-6-1983 and on the same day he got recovered his blood-stained hatchet Exh.P.1 which was taken into possession vide memo. Exh.PA. Ishfaq was, however, arrested on 1-7-1983. The appellant took the plea of grave and sudden provocation. This plea was rejected by the learned trial Court and as a sequel to the impugned trial, he was awarded the aforementioned punishment.
6. Muhammad Saleem who is the brother of Muhammad Naseem deceased figured in the witness- box as P.W.2 and has narrated the incident as stated in the F.I.R. He lives at a distance of 3 or 4 Acres from the shop of Ishfaq wherefrom they used to purchase vegetable etc. He has clarified that his brother was murdered within his view with a hatchet and his brother sustained wounds on the neck and thigh by the hatchet of the appellant. He has clarified that the shop of Ishfaq opens towards the West while the outer door of the house of Shabbir Ahmad opens towards the east. He is a matriculate and can sign in English. He has stated that a five-rupee note was given to Naseem for the purchase of vegetables and it was not recovered from him subsequently. He has conceded the fact that Ishfaq was not armed at the time of occurrence nor he had given any injury to the deceased. Earlier in his statement, the complainant had testified that Ishfaq had shouted to Shabbir Ahmad appellant that he should not spare Naseem as he was an enemy of their honour.
He did not state this fact in the F.I.R.
7. Abdul Wahid P.W.3, who has been named in the F.I.R. As an eye-witness of this occurrence, has corroborated the fact that he had seen the appellant axing Naseem to death and had threatened the bystanders with dire consequences and ran away from the scene of occurrence. He had come to the Bazar for making purchases and he is a resident of Basti Maula Bakhsh. He is not connected with the complainant party in any manner and appears to be an independent witness.
8. Badar Din P.W.1 had witnessed the recovery of hatchet Exh.P.1. In view of the plea raised by the appellant, the recovery of hatchet Exh.P.1 appears be unnecessary.
9. In response to question No,6, in his statement, made under section 342, Cr.P.C. Shabbir Ahmad appellant has explained as under:- "I am a tonga driver by profession. On 13-6-1983, I had returned home after doing daily work. As soon as I entered my house through the cattle shed facing the shop of Mst. Hajani Janol, a green grocer, I saw the deceased embracing, kissing and catching the breast of my brother's wife Mst.
Sharifan. I lost self-control and under grave and sudden provocation. I picked up a hatchet, which was lying in the cattleshed and wanted to attack Muhammad Naseem deceased, who in the meantime, ran out of the cattleshed. I followed him and overtook him in the shop of Mst. Hajani Janol where he wanted to seek refuge. I gave him hatchet blows and killed him there and then.
Only, Mst. Hajani Janol was present there and no other person had seen this incident. I returned to the cattleshed and tried to trace Mst. Sharifan but in the meantime, she had escaped, and concealed herself somewhere. I could not trace her. Thereafter, I went to the Lambardar and narrated the incident to him. Ishfaq my co-accused was neither present nor he has exhorted me.
The P.Ws. Had falsely given evidence against me, due to their relationship. I had done this act, under grave and sudden provocation."
10. It is to be seen whether or not the defence taken by the appellant rings true. Firstly, the incident took place in broad daylight at about 10 a.m. When Naseem was not expected to enter the house of Mst. Sharifan for the promotion of illicit liaison. Secondly, the shop of Ishfaq lies in front of the house of the appellant and it was not expected of Naseem to have gone to the house of Mst. Sharifan, who according to the appellant was a consenting lady. In such case, they would have chosen a safer time and a lonely place for sexual indecency. Thirdly, Mst. Sharifan did not receive any scratch at the hands of appellant at the time of this incident. Subsequently it appears that a trite defence has been created by the appellant to save his skin. The learned trial Court has rightly disbelieved the defence version put forth by Shabbir Ahmad.
11. The appellant has strived to take stock of the situation that Badar Din was with the complainant when he went to lodge the report. It was so stated by the complainant and Muhammad Akram P.W.9. Badar Din P.W.1 has explained that he just joined the recovery proceedings and did not accompany the complainant to the police station. The statement of Badar Din does not negate the prosecution case as the complainant has proved his report. The presence or the absence of Badar Din at the police station does not matter.
12. It was urged that live-rupee currency note was not recovered from the pocket of the deceased which was given to him for purchasing vegetable. May be he might have given the same to Ishfaq the vegetable-seller before this incident. This fact does not run counter to the prosecution case.
13. The ocular account of this incident has been corroborated by the medical evidence, the recovery of hatchet and the motive for the commission of this crime. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under section 302, P.P.C. And the sentence awarded to him, who had endeavoured to vindicate his honour, appears to be appropriate. I, therefore, reject this appeal. The amount of fine, if recovered shall be paid to the heirs of the deceased by way of compensation.
14. It is not a case of enhancement of the sentence, because, where the family honour is involved in a murder case, lesser punishment is awarded to an accused. In this manner, Criminal Revision No 15 of 1986 fails and is dismissed.
15. As regards the acquittal of Ishfaq, Criminal Revision No, 76 of 1986 has been filed. Muhammad Salecm has stated that Ishfaq had shouted that Naseem should not be spared as he was the enemy of the honour of their family. The F.I.R. Does not contain anything which can implicate Ishfaq in this case. A perusal of the FIR. Suggests that Ishfaq ran away from the spot, presumably he was frightened and left his shop. In the inquest report, no allegation has been made against him. Even Lalkara has not been attributed to him either in the F.I.R. Or in the inquest report. He has rightly been acquitted by the learned trial Court. Criminal Revision No, 76 of 1986 also fails and is dismissed.