This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby he on 11-12-1990 convicted Muzammil Hussain appellant under section 304, Part I, P.P.C. And sentenced him to 10 years' R.I. On each count and a fine of Rs.3,000 in default thereof 6 months' R.I. He was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000 to the legal heirs of each deceased.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction. He has requested for reduction in sentence. He argued that after having disbelieved the prosecution case and evidence produced by it, the trial Court has accepted the plea of grave and sudden provocation of the appellant in which he claimed to have killed his real sister and her paramour on seeing them in compromising position, as such, the sentence of 10 years' R.I. On each count is harsh and excessive.
Learned counsel for the State is of the same view.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that the trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution case and its evidence and has based conviction of the appellant on his confessional statement in which he stated that on seeing his sister Mot: Nusrat Bibi with her paramour Muhammad Ramzan in compromising position in his (appellant's) house, he killed them. This being the position, the sentence of 10 years' R.I. On each count is really harsh and unprecedented. So it is reduced to 5 years' R.I. On each count. The fine imposed by the trial Court and sentence in lieu thereof is upheld.
Since Muhammad Ramzan and Mst. Nusrat Bibi deceased had indulged in adultery. So the direction for payment of Rs.3,000 to the legal heirs of each deceased is not approved. Needless to say that direction for payment of compensation to the legal heirs of deceased is not mandatory because for the reasons to be recorded, the Court may decline to give such direction. The appellant will get benefit of the provision of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. As directed by the trial Court.