' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---This criminal appeal, by leave to appeal, filed by a convict in a murder case, is directed against the judgment dated 22-1-1989 rendered by a D.B. Of the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court, confirming the death sentence awarded to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi.
2. The facts concerning the occurrence as noted in the impugned judgment are:-- "The occurrence took place at the house of Muhammad Shabbir deceased on 3-9-1985 at 8 p.m. In village Daultala, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Jatli, District Rawalpindi. Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.6), the brother of the deceased, Mst. Salma (P.W.7), daughter of the deceased and the wife of the appellant and her sister Mst. Haseena and mother Mst. Jameela (given up P.Ws.) were also present at the house. The appellant reached there at the fateful time and wanted that his wife should accompany him to his house, who had been turned out of the house 5/6 days back after a beating. The deceased told the appellant that he should bring his father, but the appellant insisted and the deceased extended a flat refusal. There was verbal altercation between them and the appellant raising a Lalkara that he would give taste for not sending Mst. Salma, took out a Chhuri from the left Dub of his Shalwar and gave a blow on the left side of the chest of the deceased and ran away. The complainant family soon started with Shabbir for the hospital at Daultala, but he expired on the way."
3. The learned trial Court relied upon the ocular version furnished by the deposition of Muhammad Ramzan (P.W.6) and Mst. Salma (P.W.7), the motive, medical evidence, recovery of blood-stained Chhuri and the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist, and held that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt. He was thus, convicted under section 302, P.P.C., sentenced to death and fine of Rs,10,000 in default of payment whereof he had to suffer S.I. For six months. The Trial Court further directed that half of the fine, if recovered, would be paid to the heirs of the deceased as compensation under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. The defence put forth by the appellant that he had ousted his wife and the deceased trespassed in his house armed with a Chhuri, assaulted him and in the process of grappling, his own Chhuri penetrated into his body, was discarded by the learned trial Court.
4. Before the High Court, in the course of hearing of the murder reference and the appeal lodged by the appellant challenging his conviction and sentences, an attempt was made to get his conviction under section 302 altered into one under section 304-11, P.P.C. But this plea was turned down with the observation that:-- ".Of course, the appellant had given the blow to the deceased in a sudden quarrel in the heat of moment, but there was no fight, i.e, actual physical grappling, and his act cannot be called without premeditation as he had brought the Chhuri concealed in his dub and he also took undue advantage of the situation and acted in a cruel manner because the deceased was his father-in- law deserved respect and honour from him, and being unarmed, the situation did not call for a forceful thrust of Chhuri in the chest."
5. Leave to appeal was grantd "to examine whether it was not more appropriately a case where for conviction under section 302, P.P.C., sentence of death should have not been imposed".
6. With a view to see as to whether or not there are extenuating circumstances in this case warranting lesser of the two sentences provided by law, we have gone through the record before us. It is in the impugned judgment that the appellant and his wife Mst. Salma were living happily and only a few days before the occurrence he turned her out of the house. She was then on her family way and gave birth to a child later on. It is the prosecution's own case that the appellant went to the house of the deceased and asked him to send his wife alongwith him, but the deceased refused and demanded that he should bring his father for negotiation. It was thereafter that the appellant flared up and stabbed the deceased. According to the F.I.R. The attack was preceded by a verbal altercation between the latter and the appellant. The High Court itself has recorded a finding that he gave blow to the deceased in a heat of moment and has attributed it to a sudden quarrel. The situation perhaps could have been averted, had not the deceased betrayed an attitude of marked refusal to send the wife of the appellant with him. It is discernible from the record that the appellant was then a young lad of less than 22 years and on the denial of the company of his wife must have been provoked. He inflicted a single blow on the deceased and did not repeat the same. It appears to us that in imposing the death sentence on him the learned Judges of the High Court have not properly attended to all the relevant features of the case, which mitigate enormity of the appellant's crime. In our opinion, this is not the type of case in which extreme sentence is called for. We, therefore, while maintaining the appellant's conviction under section 302, P.P.C., convert the sentence of death awarded to him, into life imprisonment. To meet the ends of justice, the fine of Rs, 10,000 imposed on him is raised to Rs, 15,000 which, when realized, shall be wholly paid to the heirs of the deceased; in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall further suffer R.I. For two years. The appeal is partly accepted in the terms stated above. The request for grant of benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Is declined.
' Sentence reduced. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.