' The appellant namely, Amir Zaman has filed this Criminal Appeal No,476 of 1993 against his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him under section 302(b), P.P.C. By the learned Sessions Judge, Attock, through judgment, dated 20-7-1993, in a case registered against him through F.I.R. No,323, dated 29-12-1992 at Police Station Hazro, District Attock.
2. The first informant, namely, Ali Akber, who originally belonged to District Mardan, was residing with his family member in Hazro and married her daughter Mst. Zatoon (P.W.10) with the appellant, 1-1/2 years prior to the occurrence. The first informant on receipt of message about the maltreatment of the appellant with his wife Mst. Zatoon alongwith Kachkol Khan his father went to the house of appellant to take Mst. Zetoon to the house of her parents and when they alongwith Mst. Zetoon were on their way to Hazro, the appellant armed with hatchet alongwith Umar Zada, empty-handed, confronted them and forced Mst. Zetoon Bibi to go with him and when Kachkol Khan intervened, the appellant inflicted successively hatchet blows to him which landed on his head and neck. On the alarm of Mst. Zetoon Bibi, the appellant and his companion run away from the spot and Kachkol Khan died at the spot.
3. Dr. Muhammad Irshad (P.W.1) performed post-mortem examination on the dead body of Kachkol Khan on 19-2-1992 at about 1-00 p.m. And found the following injuries on his person:--
(1) An incised wound extending from other and upper end of left cheek to the highest portion of left ear 6 c.m. From the root of ear, measuring 10 c.m. x 3 c.m. Bone deep oval in shape.
(2) An incised wound in the neck extending from the upper 1/3rd of sternomastoid muscle to the other side of sternomastoid muscle (upper 1/3rd). Cutting all the soft tissues i.e. Skin, pharynx larynx, carted vessels, juguler vessels up to the vertebrae above promem adam (thyroid cartilage) measuring 13 c.m. x 6 c.m. Oval in the shape.
' In the opinion of the doctor, the death was the result of the injuries which were caused by sharp- edged weapon, and being ante-mortem were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
4. Raja Abdul Razzaq, S.H.O. Of Police Station Hazro who was examined as P.W.8 at the trial on the basis of statement made by Ali Akbar, P.W. Registered case through F.I.R. Exh.P.E. The first informant was Pashto-speaking. Therefore, his statement was recorded with the help of Zerdar P.W. Who was well-conversant with Pastho language. The S.H.O. While reaching at the spot, prepared injury statement Exh.P.F. And inquest report Exh.P.G. Of the deceased and despatched the dead body for postmortem. After post-mortem examination of deceased he took into possession the blood- stained last-worn clothes of the deceased. He also took into possession a bundle of lady suits P.10 to P.21 through memo. Exh.P.1. The S.H.O. Arrested the accused/appellant on 1-1-1993 who on the same day led to the recovery of blood-stained hatchet P.1 which was taken into possession through a sealed parcel Exh.P.C. He got prepared site plans Exh.P.B. And Exh.P.B./1 from the Halqa Patwari.
5. Ali Akbar, P.W.9, real brother of Mst. Zetoon and son of Kachkol Khan (deceased), stated that the marriage of Mst. Zetoon with appellant had taken place 1-1/2 years prior to the occurrence and that about 6 months ago, their relations became strained as a result of which the appellant used to maltreat Mst. Zetoon. He stated that on receipt of information about merciless beating given to Mst.
Zetoon by the appellant, he alongwith his deceased father went to the house of the appellant who voluntarily allowed Mst. Zetoon to go with them and when they alongwith Mst. Zetoon were at some distance from village Pirdad at about 10-00 a.m. The appellant armed with hatchet in the company of Umarzada who was empty-handed confronted them and snatched bundle of cloth being carried by Mst. Zetoon and on the intervention of Kachkol Khan (deceased) the appellant gave him two successive blows with hatchet which landed on his head and neck as a result of which Kachkol Khan (deceased) lost his breath. The witness made statement in Pashto language which was translated by Zedar in Urdu. Mst. Zetoon while making similar statement, has corroborated the statement of the first informant on each material point. There was no motive behind the occurrence except that the appellant felt annoyed with his wife on her departure with her father and brother. The learned trial Court after evaluation of the evidence of eye-witnesses had found the appellant guilty of the charge and upon conviction awarded him lesser sentence of life imprisonment for the consideration that the appellant being a young man could not tolerate the act of taking his wife by her father and brother with them without his consent. The appellant was also allowed the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant, without questioning the conviction on merits, contended that in the light of the fact that there was no motive behind the occurrence and the appellant being within his right to restrain his wife from leaving the house without his permission while losing self- control, caused injuries to the deceased on his intervention when the appellant made an attempt to take his wife back to his house and, thus, the offence allegedly committed by the appellant would fall within the ambit of section 302(c), P.P.C. For the purpose of sentence. The learned counsel representing the State conversely argued that in the light of plea taken by the accused on the resistance of Mst. Zetoon, to the demand of accused the intervention of her father being natural there was no justification for the appellant to cause injuries to him and thus the case squarely falls within the ambit of section 302(b), P.P.C. The occurrence happened due to family dispute with no background of enmity or any other motive. The deceased alongwith his daughter Mst. Zetoon and son Ali Akbar were proceeding towards his house when the appellant, husband of Mst. Zetoon, attacked them. According to the prosecution story, due to misbehaviour of appellant with Mst.
Zetoon, she was being taken by her father and brother to their house and the appellant while losing patience could . Not tolerate the departure of his wife Mst. Zetoon from his house with her father and brother and made an attempt to take her back but on the intervention of the deceased caused him injury. The appellant did not plead any special plea to bring the case within the ambit of section 302(c), P.P.C. It was not a case of either sudden or grave provocation as the occurrence has no background of any other incident of either nature which could be the source of even a slight provocation to bring it within the scope of section 302(c), P.P.C. For the purpose of punishment. The Apex Court in Abdul Zaheer v. State 2000 SCM R 406 while reviewing the whole case-law on the subject observed as under:-- "That by enlarge all cases of sudden and provocation would not ipso facto fall within the ambit of section 302, P.P.C. Particularly those of Qatl-e-Amd of wife, sister, or brother very close female relative at the hands of male on the allegation of Siyah Kari."
In the instant case despite the fact that there was no motive still there was no justification for the appellant to cause death of his father-in-law who was taking his daughter to his house on account of ill-treatment of the appellant with his wife. The appellant instead of repenting himself and giving respect to father and brother of his wife for his ill-behavior towards his wife decided to take severe action against his father-in-law. There can be no denial to the fact that quarrel of the appellant with his in-laws was due to uncontrolled emotion with no background of enmity. Therefore, the element of grave and sudden provocation cannot be pleaded in the present case as no extraordinary circumstance was created either by Mst. Zetoon and her father and brother rather the appellant out of frustration of his behavior with his wife became revengeful against her father due to his intervention, thus, there was neither grave nor sudden provocation as pleaded by the appellant. The mere fact that wife of appellant without his permission proceeded to the house of her parents with her father and brother would not be a circumstance to plead provocation as a justification to cause death of innocent person. It is common in our society that the parents in such circumstances take their daughters to their houses and it is not considered a provocation for the husband who can in a reasonable manner place his wife and female members of the family for their dignity and honour under some restrictions but has no right to place restriction on their free movement in their homes and to see their parents or accompany to them to their house, therefore, act of the appellant cannot be covered by grave and sudden provocation for the purpose of punishment under section 302(c) of P.P.C. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any substance in this appeal which stands dismissed while maintaining conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial Court.