' JAVED IQBAL, J.----Leave is sought against judgment, dated 21-32000 passed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and judgment , dated 30-9-1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum, was kept intact.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as contained , in the F.I.R. (Exh.P.E.) got lodged by Ghulam Muhammad (complainant) at Police Station P.D. Khan are that besides a land dispute accused Manawar Ali was reprimanded by his wife namely, Mst. Naziran Bibi (deceased) due to his immoral gesture and in retaliation thereto on 28-1-1991 at about 8-00 a.m. When the complainant alongwith his son Manzoor Ahmad and nephew Muhammad Afzal were cutting fodder for cattle in field they heard commotion and saw that accused Munawar Ali was inflicting Sota blows to Mst. Naziran Bibi while accused Manzoor Ahmad having Sota was standing nearby who succumbed to the injuries at the spot. A case was accordingly got registered under section 302/34, P.P.C., and accused Manzoor Ahmad and Manawar Ali were sent up for trial and on conclusion thereof accused Manawar Ali was convicted under section 302(b), P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs,30,000 and in case of default to suffer further R.I. For one year with the direction that half of the amount, if realized, be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The accused was also given benefit under section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Manzoor Ahmad was, however, acquitted. Being aggrieved an appeal was preferred by Munawar Ali which has been dismissed by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. Hence this petition.
3. It is mainly argued by Sardar Muhammad Siddique Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner that no conviction could have been awarded under section 302, P.P.C. In view of the provisions as contained in section 316, P.P.C. As the alleged murder does not fall within the definition of Qatl-e-Amd. It is also argued that the punishment as awarded under section 302, P.P.C. Is harsh and the circumstances of the case escaped notice which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is urged with vehemence that medical evidence negates the oral version and benefit whereof should have been given to the petitioner as a matter of right. It is contended firmly that the material prosecution witnesses are interested and their version should have been discarded as no corroboratory or confirmatory material is available to justify conviction. The plea of grave and sudden provocation is also pressed into service which according to learned counsel is apparent as the accused saw Mst. Naziran Bibi and one Saddullah kissing each other and resultantly due to heat of passion the alleged offence has been committed but the learned trial Court and Appellate Courts have ignored this important fact which caused grave prejudice.
4. We have carefully examined the contention as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely gone through the impugned judgment. The entire evidence has been thrashed out carefully with the eminent assistance of learned Advocate Supreme Court. Let we mention here at the outset that the premier contention as agitated on behalf of the petitioner that no conviction could have been awarded under section 302(b), P.P.C. Is fallacious for the reason that the provisions as contained in sections 315 and 316, P.P.C. Cannot be made applicable in view of the circumstances of the case. It transpires from an indepth scrutiny of the record that repeated Sota blows were inflicted and resultantly her spleen was ruptured which indicates the gravity and force of Sota blows. The helpless young woman succumbed to the injuries at, the spot. In such view of the matter by no stretch of imagination the provisions as contained in section 316, P.P.C. Can be made applicable. We are not persuaded to agree that he had no intention to kill Mst. Naziran Bibi for the simple reason that "by ' intention' is meant the expectation of the consequence in question". 'It is a universal principle, that "when a man is charged with doing an act, of which the probable consequence may be highly injurious, the intention is an inference of law resulting from the doing of the act. Intention does not imply or assume the existence of some previous design or forethought. It means an actual intention, the existing intention of the moment, and is proved by, or inferred from, the acts of the accused and the circumstances of the case." [(1887) P.R. No,62 of 1887]. As mentioned hereinabove the spleen which otherwise was normal has been ruptured due to Sota blows and thus petitioner should be presumed to have done so with the knowledge that by such infliction of Sota blows he was likely to cause death. The learned Advocate Supreme Court failed to convince that the statements of material witnesses being interested should have been discarded. Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.8) and Muhammad Afzal (P.W.9) are eye-witnesses who have mentioned in a categoric manner that Sota blows were inflicted by Manawar Ali. In spite of searching question and exhaustive cross- examination nothing beneficial could be extracted. There is absolutely no lawful justification to discard their version being reliable and worthy of credence and cannot be brushed aside on the ground of inter se relationship as pressed time and again by the learned Advocate Supreme Court.
It is well settled by now that "mere friendship or relationship does not make a witness an interested one and testimony of such a witness who otherwise seems to be a truthful witness cannot be rejected on such ground. An interested witness is one who has a motive for falsely implicating an accused, is a partisan and is involved in the matter against the accused. Friendship or relationship with the deceased will not be sufficient to discredit a witness particularly when there is no motive to falsely involve the accused". 2000 SCM R 1784 + 1994 SCM R 1 + PLD 1962 SC 269 + 1976 SCM R 161 + 1970 SCM R 734 + PLD 1988 SC 274. It may not be out of place to mention here that "the mere disinterestedness of a witness does not prove that he has come forward with a true statement. The statement itself has to be scrutinized thoroughly and it has to be seen as to whether in the circumstances of the cases the statement is reasonable, probable or plausible and could be relied upon. The principle that a disinterested witness is always to be relied upon even if his 'statement is unreasonable, improbable and not plausible, then it would lead to very dangerous consequences".
(1977 SCM R 457 (465) Muhammad Rafiq).
5. In the light of what has been mentioned hereinabove we are of the considered view that the statements of eye-witnesses namely, Ghulam Muhammad (P.W.8) and Muhammad Afzal (P.W.9) have rightly been relied upon by the learned trial and Appellate Courts. In so far as the question of corroboration is concerned that being rule of prudence is not always necessary. Let we mention here, at this juncture that even "uncorroborated testimony may be relied on in context with other relevant circumstances of a particular case. In this regard PLD 1969 SC 488 + PLD 1974 SC 37 can be referred. The learned Advocate Supreme Court could not convince that as to how and in what respect the medical evidence was in conflict with the oral version. The statement of Dr. Saeeda Kausar (P.W.1) lends full support to the oral version and the question of any conflict does not arise.
In so far as the plea of grave and sudden provocation is concerned that appears to be without any substance and cannot be pressed into service because "the law does not take into account abnormal creature reacting abnormally in given insituations. The law contemplates the acting of normal beings in given situations and the protection that is offered by the Exception is the protection for normal beings reacting normally in a given set of circumstances. A Court has to consider whether a reasonable person placed in the same position as the accused was, would have reacted under that provocation in the manner in which the accused did". (Dhanno Khan (1957) Cr.LJ 498). The record is indicative of the fact that no justification whatsoever was available to kill a helpless poor woman on the ground of sudden and grave provocation as nothing has come on record show ing that due to heat of passion the alleged murder was committed. Before the plea of grave and sudden provocation is pressed into service it must be shown distinctly not only that act was done H under the influence of some feeling which took away from the person doing it all control over his actions, but that feeling had an adequate cause which is lacking badly in this case.
6. In the light of foregoing discussion we are of the view that impugned judgment being free from any illegality or irregularity does not I call for any interference and resultantly the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.