1. SALAHUDDDIN AHMED, J.-Thesetwo petitions have been heard together and age being disposed of under one order.
2. Petition No. 85 of 1975 is by Karamat Ali Shah, and it is from an order of the High Court maintaining his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code and commuting the death sentence passed on him to imprisonment for life.
3. Petition No. 96 of 1975 is by complainant Syed Haider Ali Shah asking for enhancement of the sentence of imprisonment for life passed upon Karamat Ali Shah to sentence of death.
4. The incident in which Amanat Ali Shah was shot at with a pistol and killed took place on the 9th of May, 1972, at 11.-30 p.m. In the Baithak of complainantSyed Haider Ali Shah situated in Chak No. 51/RB,Anandpur, District Sheikhupura. A first information report was lodged at 4-30 a.m. On the 10th of May, 1972, I .e within five hours of the occurrence. The incident was witnessed by no less than four witnesses who were present at the spot in connection with the marriage ceremony of the son of Nazir Shah. This Nazir Shahis son of sister of the mother --of complainant and deceased Amanat Ali Shah. Of the fair eye- witnesses two of them, namely, Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Poota are independent persons and had no reason to falsely implicate petitioner Karamat Ali Shah.
5. The ocular evidence has been amply corroborate by the surrender of the petitioner with the crime pistol and the matching of the empties recovered from the spot with the pistol. In fact, the petitioner has not disputed the incident but has pleaded that he had killed the deceased on account of "Ghairat". The petitioner stated, in course ref his examination undersection 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Court that Mst Bashiran wife of the petitioners uncles son had eloped with the deceased about 10 days before the occurrence. While coming from the side of the houses of his uncles Jar Shah and Akbar Shah in order to proceedto his house he saw Mst. Bashiran anddeceased sling together at the bank of the water-course.Both Mst. Bashiran andthe deceased saw the petitioner and ran away: The deceasedran to the Baikhak ofcomplainantSyed Haider Ali Shah the petitioner went after the deceased and having been over- whelmby the resentment which lye entertained against the illicit relations between the deceased and Mst. Bashrian host self control and fired at the deceased, The petitioner stated thathe made the same statement before the police and produced the crime pistol voluntarilybefore the police and that he committedthe murder outof Ghairat.
6. Itmay be mentioned bare that the story about Mst. Bashiran and the deceased standing together atthe bank of the watercourse and their miming away on seeingthe petitioner and the petitioner following the deceased and firing athim in the Baithak of the complainant were all mentioned for the first time before the Court of Session.. Before the police he only mentioned about the abduction of Mst. Bashiran by Amanat deceased without, however disclosing that she was the wife of Faqir Hussain Shah, a cousin of the petitioner.
7. The evidence of C.W. Akbar Alai Patwari has disclosed that the husband of Mst. Bashiran was not a son of the uncle of the petitioner. It appears at page 42 of the printed paper book of the High Court that the petitioner refused to produce any evidence in defence to prove his relationship with the said Faqir Husssa in shah. In these circumstance, the learned Judges of the High court were right in not accepting the aforeasied statement of the petitioner in its entirety. The learned Judges, however, felt that there were circumstances in the case which might have given some provocation to the petitioner, but such provocation was neither grave nor sudden and it did not bring the case within Exception No. 1 of section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and this was the reason that the sentence of death passed upon the petitioner was reduced to a sentence of imprisonment for life.
8. We are of the opinion that the petitioner has been rightly convicted and sentenced.
9. As regards Petition No. 96 of 1975 we are of the opinion that the reason given by the learned Judges of the High Court for reducing the sentence is not altogether unreasonable and we, therefore, do not think that the sentence passed upon the petitioner should be enhanced.
10. Boththe petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.