' On 30-5-1992, at about evening time, Akbar (appellant-accused) and his son Bashir (acquitted- accused) allegedly shot dead Riaz Ahmad (deceased), the brother of Ghulam Muhammad complainant and Mst. Sughran (deceased), the daughter of Akbar accused, due to suspected illicit relations between Riaz Ahmad and Mst. Sughran. A case F.I.R. No.212 of 1992 was registered on the day of occurrence at 8-35 p.m. At Police Station Sadar, Faisalabad. The complainant Ghulam Muhammad being dissatisfied with the investigation wherein Bashir was found, to be innocent, filed a complaint Exh.P.B. On the same facts in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who vide his judgment, dated 24-11-1993, convicted Akbar (appellant-accused) under section 302(b), P.P.C. For Qatl-e-Amd of Riaz Ahmad (deceased) and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs.20,000 and in default of payment of fine to further R.I. For 2 years. He also awarded compensation of Rs.20,000 and in default of payment of compensation to 6 months' R.I. To the said accused. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was given to the appellant- accused.
2. Bashir Ahmad accused was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted in this case. The charge for the alleged murder of Mst. Sughran (deceased) was dropped against both the accused persons as the heirs of the said deceased had pardoned the accused and had waived their right of Qisas and Diyat.
3. There is absolutely no dispute between prosecution and the defence regarding the manner in which the occurrence took place except that according to the defence both the deceased were earlier found to be in a compromising position in an abandoned Dhari and Akbar appellant- accused while exercising the right of self-defence and under grave and sudden provocation shot dead Riaz Ahmad and Mst. Sughran.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant found Riaz Ahmad (deceased) committing Zina with his daughter Mst. Sughran and at that time Riaz Ahmad (deceased) also fired 2/3 shots and in order to save the honour of the family and to protect himself, the appellant while acting in self-defence and under provocation killed both of them. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, pointed out that Riaz Ahmad wps killed in the village while Mst. Sughran was killed near the Dhari of the appallant and there was an interval of some time between both the murders and as such the provocation, if any, was not that grave which could justify the bringing of the case of the appellant within the relevant exception.
5. It is an admitted and proved fact that Riaz Ahmad was murdered in the village and thereafter, Mst. Sughran was murdered near the Dhari outside the village. It is also admitted by the P.Ws. That illicit relations were suspected by the accused persons between both the deceased. It is also in evidence and not denied by the defence that Mst. Sughran had strained relations with her husband and was living with her parents. The three vaginal swabs taken by Dr. Zahid Hussain (P.W.3) at the time of post-mortem examination of the dead body of Mst. Sughran were found to be stained with semen. In these circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that the defence version has much force that Riaz Ahmad (deceased) was committing Zina with Mst. Sughran and this protonated Akbar, the father of Mst. Sughran, and it finally ended into the death of both Riaz Ahmad and Mst.
Sughran.
6. No doubt both of them were murdered at separate places and a different times but there is no way to measure the degree of provocation and l how long it continues. It is only the mind of a person which reacts in different manners on such occasions. In the case in hand, the accused Akbar did got provocated and this provocation was so grave that he even killed his own daughter.
In a Muslim society, the knowledge of illicit liaison of a female of the family with some other person is so painful, disturbing and cause of mental torture that it cannot be explained in words. Such things are not accepted in our Muslim society and a "Ghairat Mand" father/brother looses all his patience and even mental balance. His actions which follow such an incident are but natural and need proper realization by the Courts. The appellant not only murdered Riaz Ahmad but also took the life of his daughter, which is a sufficient proof of the fact that the appellant had no other enmity with Riaz Ahmad except that he dishonoured his family. Obviously, it is a case of grave provocation, But at the same time the Courts neither favour nor allow anyone to take law in his hands and thereby thwart the legal process. If citizens start settling their own accounts, even for a noble cause or under provocation, there would be social upheaval and chaos obliterating the established judicial system. To meet such an eventuality, such persons must be punished but with leniency.
7. The major objective for the demand of Pakistan was the establishment of a social, political and economic order based on the Islamic Principles after the Independence. The Quaid-i-Azam emphasized on the Islamic Ideology as being the basis of the struggle for Pakistan as is clear through his words:- "We did not demand Pakistan simply to have a piece of land but we wanted a laboratory where we could experiment on Islamic Principles." (Peshawar 1946).
"Pakistan does not mean freedom and independence only, but the Islamic Ideology as well which has to be preserved, which has come to us as precious gift and which we hope others will share with us."
(June, 1945).
' As Pakistan's entire existence was and is based upon Islamic Principles, we, the Pakistani Muslims must maintain our lifestyles according to Islamic norms. Such norms do not allow for crimes such as Zina to be tolerated. The basic difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim society is the fact that the Muslims are the adherents of the Islamic principles, whereas the non-Muslims are not.
In this case, Akbar (accused) must have been over taken by revulsion which steals man's mental composure on seeing the act of the Zina being committed by his own daughter. Yet this does not provide him with the right of taking their lives, therefore, the appellant must be punished but not with severity--- keeping in mind rectitude and un-Islamic act committed by the deceased.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that Akbar appellant-accused acted under grave and sudden provocation and is not liable to Qisas or Ta'zir within the meanings of section 302(a)(b), P.P.C. Hence, his conviction under section 302(b), P.P.C. Is altered to that under section 302(c), P.P.C.
And the sentence of imprisonment for life is reduced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs.20,000 is reduced to Rs.10,000 and in default of payment of fine he will suffer further R.I. For one year. The accused Riaz Ahmad was involved in an immoral activity, which became the cause of his murder and, therefore, his heirs are not entitled to any compensation, which in fact is the right of the heirs of a person murdered for no fault on his part. The benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Has already been given to the appellant-accused by the trial Court. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
Sentence reduced.