' The appellant stands charged for having killed his wife Mst. Begum and her paramour Sher Muhammad son of Kaki Mula, on 1-5-1995 at 2300 hours, by firing at them with a D.B. Shot-gun Vide: F.I.R. No,350 registered at Police Station, Mingora District Swat, under section 302, P.P.C. On 30-4- 1995. Both of them died on the spot.
2. After killing his lady wife and Sher Muhammad, the appellant went to Police Station, Mingora and got recorded the F.I.R. He surrendered himself before the Police and also produced the weapon of offence before the Investigating Officer.
3. After the completion of the usual Police investigation complete challan was submitted against the appellant and others in the trial Court on 14-11-1995.
4. Having recorded the evidence produced by the Prosecution, the trial Court also recorded the statement of appellant under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein the appellant stated:- {{URDU TEXT}}
5. In other words, the appellant/accused admitted to have killed his wife as well as her paramour Sher Muhammad although, according to him, he did it under sudden and grave provocation.
According to him he saw the appellant committing "Zina" with his wife Mst. Begum.
6. It may be pointed out that the appellant chose not to produce any evidence in his defence and also refused to be examined as his own witness, on oath, under section 340(2), Cr.P.C.
7. The trial Judge assessed the evidence produced by the Prosecution and took into consideration, the statement of the appellant recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And after discussing the same and the case-law produced before him, he (Mr. Muhammad Sher Shah, Additional Sessions Judge, Swat) convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo 20 years R.I. For committing double murder. The appellant was also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.25,000 (Rs.Twenty five thousand) under section 544-A, Cr.P.C. To the legal heirs of deceased Sher Muhammad and compensation amounting to Rs.25,000 (Rs.Twenty five thousand) to the legal heirs of Mst.Begum failing which the said amount was to be recovered as arrears of the land revenue. The appellant was however given the benefit of section 382-B, C r . P. C .
8. Syed Sardar Hussain, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant, Azhar Rashid, learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State and Syed I Rehman, Advocate learned counsel for the complainant present and heard. Record of the case perused.
9. It may be stated at the very out-set that the learned counsel for the appellant has failed to convince me that the Additional Sessions Judge, Swat has either misread or non-read the evidence produced before him by the prosecution. On the other hand, a perusal of his judgment, scribed in Urdu, would show that he has taken pains in recording the judgment. He has discussed the evidence in detail and after assessing the same given valid reasons for his conclusion which are quite correct. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the trial Court has committed no illegality/material irregularity and that its judgment is neither arbitrary nor perverse. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision recorded by the trial Court.
10. This appeal is without any substance and is dismissed.