' IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHRY, J.--- Nadeem alias Deema has submitted this appeal under section 25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 against judgment, dated 21-10-1997 passed by Judge Special Court No,2, Anti-Terrorism, Lahore Division, Lahore whereby he was convicted on two counts of murder and sentenced to death and was also convicted under section 338-C, P.P.C. And awarded seven years' R.I. For causing Isgat-i-Janin.
2. The prosecution case described by Muhammad Tariq son of Muhammad Rafique complainant was to the effect that on 5-7-1992 he was sitting in the house of Muhammad Hanif P.W. All of a sudden he heard a noise coming from outside. He rushed out and saw Nadeem convict, appellant coming out of house of Sharif, father-in-law of the complainant while holding a "Chhuri". The complainant entered the house of Muhammad Sharif and saw Mst. Sughran Bibi lying dead while Mst. Deeba was crying that Nadeem had injured her and her mother Mst. Sughran Bibi. Mst. Farzana P.W. (since dead) was also inside the house who informed the complainant that Nadeem, accused (husband of her aunt) had given Chhuri blow to Mst. Sughran Bibi and Mst. Deeba and fled away.
The complainant removed Mst. Deeba to hospital leaving dead body of Mst. Sughran behind.
Muhammad Hanif P.W. And other residents of the locality also gathered there. The complainant thereafter proceeded to the police station. Rana Muhammad Azam, S.-I. P.W.12 met him where his statement Exh.P.F. Was recorded and later case F.I.R. No,130 of 1992 Exh.P.F./1 was registered at police station.
' Motive for this offence was stated to be that Nadeem was married to Mst. Deeba (sister-in-law) of complainant. He was unemployed and maltreated Mst. Deeba to coerce her to fetch money from her parents. He had even sold away the belongings of Mst. Deeba. She had come to her parents house in connection with the death of her brother, Tipu. The accused came to the house of his in- laws to take Mst. Deeba back to his house but his mother-in-law Mst. Sughran Bibi declined to oblige him by saying that Mst. Deeba would stay till Chehlum of her brother. It was further alleged that mother of the accused also used to extend threats to the in-laws of the accused with dire consequences and for that reason the accused had committed the offence.
3. On the completion of investigation challan against Nadeem was sent up for trial to the Court of an Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. Later on, however, the case was transferred to Special Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
4. The appellant was charged under section 302, P.P.C. Under two counts as well as under section 338-C, P.P.C. To which he pleaded not the guilty. Prosecution was, thus, when called upon to lead evidence produced 13 witnesses to prove its case.
5. Muhammad Siddiq, Constable P.W.1, Zulfiqar Ali, Constable P.W.2, Shahzad Ahmad appeared as P.W.3. Dr. Muhammad Khalid P.W.4 conducted post-mortem examination of Mst. Sughran Bibi on 5- 7-1992 and noted as many as 10 injuries on her person. The injuries were ante-mortem and caused by sharp-edged weapon. Post-mortem examination on the dead body of Mst. Deeba was also conducted by the same witness and nine incised injuries were noticed on her dead body.
6. Mst. Farzana appeared as P.W.S. The recording of her evidence was deferred but before her testimony could be recorded she died a natural death. Tariq complainant appeared as P.W.6.
Muhammad Hanif P.W.7 supported the version of the complainant. Imran Ali Bokhari, Draftsman appeared as P.W.B.
' He prepared site plan Exh.P.J. And Exh.P.J./1. Mst. Nasim Akhtar daughter of Mst. Sughran and sister of Mst. Deeba deceased appeared as P.W.9..Zamir-ulHaq, A.S.-I. Appeared as P.W.10. Altaf Hussain, A.S,-I. P.W.11 deposed about having recorded the formal F.I.R. Rana Muhammad Azam appeared as P.W.12. Dr. Nuzhat Naheed Ishaq, Medical Officer, appeared as P.W.13. She had attended to Mst.
Deeba when she was brought to hospital and had noted nine injuries on her person.
7. The accused in his examination under section 342, Cr.P.C., denied the prosecution case against him and stated that he was falsely involved in the case on account of suspicion and misunderstanding. He also stated that Mst. Sughran used to quarrel with her husband and he was turned out of the house and that Mst. Deeba was being kept by her mother for immoral purpose and that some unknown assailants had killed both the deceased in darkness who could not be traced.
8. Muhammad Latif D.W.1 stated that he had seen Nadeem accused at 8-30 p.m. On the night of occurrence and he was titching clothes at his shop. Muhammad Bashir D.W.2 stated that accused was running a tailoring shop and that he had closed his shop at 9-30/10-00 p.m. And that Nadeem was taken into custody from his house. Abdul Hameed D.W.3 produced Register No,1 of Police Station Mozang relating to year 1995 and F.I.R. No,102, dated 10-7-1995 which was registered against Muhammad Hanif for offence under section 5 of Prevention of Gambling Act, 1978.
9. Learned Trial Court believed the prosecution case in totality and convicted the accused for offence under section 302, P.P.C. (on two counts) and sentenced him to death on both the counts.
He was also directed to pay Rs, one lac as compensation to legal heirs of Mst. Deeba as well as Mst.
Sughran. In case of default, the convict was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The learned Trial Court also convicted the accused for offence under section 338-C, P.P.C. And sentenced him to seven years' R.I.
10. The convict submitted the titled appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant as well learned Assistant Advocate-General have been heard in the matter.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant did not challenge the conviction of the appellant but submitted that he would be pleading for awarding lesser penalty to the appellant and in this context it was argued that Mst. Deeba, wife of the appellant had gone to her parents house when her brother met an accident and had died. She did not return to the appellant, and that mother of the appellant according to evidence on record as well as appellant had gone on several occasions to bring back Mst. Deeba but they were insulted and that occurrence took place in that background. It was contended that mother of appellant was insulted by the deceased on the day of occurrence and then appellant had visited the house of in-laws but no body had seen as to what had happened before the appellant started inflicting blows to Mst. Sughran Bibi and then had injured Mst. Deeba. It was argued that possibility could not be ruled out that provocation was provided by the ladies whereafter the accused under sudden and grave provocation caused injuries to both the ladies and that this was a factor which warranted mitigation of the sentence imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court. Learned Assistant Advocate-General on the other hand strenuously argued that the accused had gone to the house of in-laws with determination to eliminate both the ladies and had inflicted large number of injuries on them and the manner in which the offence was committed was heinous and the appellant did not deserve any concession.
12. Since conviction of the appellant for offence under section 302 or 338-C, P.P.C. Has not been challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant and only prayer has been made for mitigation of sentence imposed on the appellant, therefore, we shall be attending to question of sentence only and would not advert to other aspects of the case.
13. Punishments are awarded to offenders for three purposes and these are said to be retributive, preventive and reformative. While the wronged desire vengeance, the normative system or the legal system which prescribes the punishment aims at prevention of recurrence of similar misdeeds; the society considers that the chastisement provided would reform the offender. Human indiscretions in desires or in revenge, are limitless. Vendetta or rage over a trite case of insult or supposed insult might result in even a greater outrage. The revenge has to be contained. Undue harshness of punishment erodes deterrent character of the punishment with passage of time due to human insensitiveness developed as an instinctive reaction. And a narrative system which ignores social sensibilities of the society (which in the first instance prescribes the conduct and punishment for violators) gradually reduces its acceptability which is the ultimate requirement for success of any legal system. Therefore, sentencing in a rational society is a difficult and often delicate task. The competing demands of the victim, the society and the state have to be kept in view while prescribing any punishment for a crime. The punishment should satisfy the retributive teeth of the wronged, should be adequate enough to serve as deterrence for would be offenders and should also cater for the social morality. We have attended to the question of sentence keeping these factors in view.
13-A. The wife of the convict Mst. Deeba, deceased, went to her parents house when her brother Tipu met an accident, and then stayed on even after all the nuptial rituals were over. Mst. Nasim, mother of the convict went several times to bring her back but failed in her efforts. Though, prosecution had tried, to set up a case that Mst. Deeba has to leave her husband's house due to his unreasonable demands which the family of deceased could not meet, yet that aspect appears to be an over doing on the part of complainant party, Mst. Deeba, deceased, has not been shown to have deserted her husband earlier though she stayed with her husband for 1-1/2 years. Anyhow, Mst. Nasim, mother of the convict, went to house of the deceased on the day of occurrence and according to P.W.9, she stayed there for quite some time and when Mst. Sughran and Mst. Deeba declined to oblige her, she kept scolding the deceased's family for hours. It would not be wrong to assume that Mst. Nasim should have got the same treatment at the hands of the deceased. Later she returned home, insulted, dejected and unsuccessfully. In the backdrop of these events, the appellant reached the home of his in-laws. What transpired between the parties, has not come on record. The only alleged eye-witness, Farzana, died during the trial. The complainant and other P.Ws. Reached the spot after hearing hue and cry and had not seen or heard as to what transpired shortly before the accused opened attack. May be the parties exchanged hot words or traded insults and insult by the wife and the mother-in-law (the deceased) provided provocation to the appellant. In an enlightened society, retort or even a rebuke by a wife can be taken in a good stride by the husband, but an uneducated environment where the males have somewhat medieval notions of honour, disrespect shown by a wife or a mother-in-law would not be that much pleadable. We, therefore, feel incline to give a marginal allowance to the convict of the societal notions in this regard. As record does not highlight the prelude to the final denouement we do not feel inclined to confirm the sentence of death.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we maintain the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court on all the charges. However, sentence of death on two counts of murder imposed on the appellant/convict is converted into imprisonment for life on both the counts. The brutality exhibited in commission of the crime by the convict is immeasurable and, therefore, the sentences of imprisonment awarded to appellant are directed to run consecutively. Benefit of provisions of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Shall be extended to the convict.
15. Murder reference is answered in the negative. Appeal is dismissed.