' Rehmat son of Wali Muhammad, resident of village Budha, was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, for the murder of Liaqat and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs, 500 ; in default of payment of fine to undergo further R. I. For one year, vide judgment dated 31- 74973. The convict has challenged his conviction and sentence by means.Of this appeal through Jail.
The sole point for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the version of the prosecution is to be believed or the statement made by the appellant before the trial Court, because in his statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. The appellant had admitted to have killed Liaqat.
3. The alleged incident took place on 3-10-1972 at about 2 p. m. In the field of Shahamad in village Budha. Liaqat was going out of the village followed by his uncle Ali, who was at a distance of 18/19 karams. When Liaqat reached near the rice field of Shahamad, the appellant armed with a hatchet suddenly appeared and attacked the deceased.
4.Report about the said occurrence was lodged by Ali at Police Station Nankana on the same day at 5 p. m. Which was recorded by Muhammad Asghar Sub-Inspector. The officer after recording the report left for the place of occurrence, where he reached at about 7/8 p. m., he found the dead body of Liaqat lying in a cotton field. He prepared the injury and inquest report and sent the body for post-mortem examination.
5. Dr. Capt. Abdul Razzaq, Medical Officer, Hospital, Nankana on 4-10-1972, at 8 a. In. Performed autopsy of Liaqat. He found 27 incised wounds, four abrasions and a cut on the back of left elbow.
6. The appellant was arrested on 4-10-1972 at mid-night from his house by Abdul Rehman A. S. I. To the recovery of hatchet P. 6, blood-stained clothes the person of the appellant were also taken into possession vide memo. Exh. PB.
The occurrence was witnessed by Ali and Munir Shah. Relying on the evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses, recovery and the medical evidence, the prosecution tried to prove its case against the appellant.
7. Liaqat deceased was the nephew of Ali. Ali stated that he was going towards the field and when he reached near the field of Shahamad, Rehmat armed with a hatchet appeared and started inflicting injuries with the hatchet. Liaqat tried to run away and entered into the cotton field of Bashir. The appellant also ran after him. Liaqat fell in the cotton field. The appellant inflicted more injuries there. Ali raised alarm. Haider and Munir Shah came to the spot and saw the occurrence.
The two witnesses challenged the appellant. Thereafter he ran away along with the weapon of offence.
8. Ali admitted that the deceased had illicit liaison with Mst. Nooran, sister of the appellant. Munir Shah corroborated the version of Ali and said that while he was passing from the Dera of Sar he saw Haider going ahead of him towards the village. He called him. Both of them stopped. Then they beard the alarm of Ali ; Munir Shah and Haider then ran towards the place of occurrence. There he saw Rehman injuring Liaqat. All of them challenged the appellant but he tan away along with the weapon of offence.
9. I do not intend to discuss the evidence of recovery, because of the statement made by the appellant. As already observed by me he admitted to have killed the deceased.
10. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court admitted that he suspected Liaqat deceased of illicit liaison with his sister Mst. Nooran. About his arrest he stated that he was apprehended in the evening of 3rd October 1972, from the kotha of Daim and Khan Tallies, where he had been confined by Rai Zakir Khan and others, whom he had told the tire story. He was taken out from there by Riaz Ahmad Tarar, S. I., and he produced the blood-stained hatchet and blood- stained clothes himself.
' When further questioned as to whether the blood-stained clothes and hatchest belonged to him, his answer was in the affirmative.
' To the question : "How do you explain the injury on your person found at the time of your arrest", he gave the following reply "On the day of occurrence after taking my meals from my house I was going to cut trees from the garden of Nawab Machi. When I reached the cotton field of Bashir, I heard the murmering sound from inside the field and as I got near I found my unmarried sister Mst. Nooran baying sexual intercourse with Liaqat deceased. I reprimanded both of them and Liaqat deceased then grappled with me and gave injuries to me with his sofa carried by him. I lost self-control and gave hatchet injuries on the person of the deceased due to grave and sudden provocation. I also tried to take my sister to task but could not do so as she fled away. I had totally lost my power of self-control and, therefore, gave numerous blows with sharp and blunt side of the hatchet to the deceased without knowing the consequences thereof. No body witnessed the occurrence. I then went to the garden and informed Nawab about the occurrence and my inability to cut the trees and then went to the village where I told the Zamindar and asked them to produce me before the police. They confined me in the kotha of Daim and Khan Tellies and sent for the police. My sister was so annoyed with me that she appeared as witness during investigation against me before the police.
' The appellant declined to produce any evidence in defence.
11. From the evidence of All and Munir Shah, there is no indication that any words were exchanged between the appellant and the deceased, before the latter was attacked. This obviously suggests that either the prosecution was trying to withhold something or that the witnesses did not know what happened when Liaqat was attacked. If this evidence was to be accepted on its face value, then it would mean that the appellant had no motive either remote or immediate for the alleged murder.
There is yet another important factor to be taken note of which is that Ali admitted previous enmity ; criminal litigation had been going on between the parties. In view of the past relations of the parties and in the absence of any other independent evidence it is highly unsafe to rely on their words.
12. I have compared the evidence of the two witnesses with the statement of the appellant. The prosecution's version does not inspire confidence ; whereas the statement made by the appellant is more convincing. The appellant without any hesitation admitted that the hatchet and the blood- stained clothes taken into possession by the police were his.
13. This leaves me now to examine as to whether the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court is in accordance with law. In view of the grave and sudden provocation under which the appellant acted I do not think his conviction under section 302, P. P. C. Is legally maintainable. The same is, therefore, altered to one under section 304(1), P. P. C.
14. The next question is that of sentence. Unfortunately the deceased received as many as 32 injuries most of which were incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapon, but in view of what the appellant saw, it was quite natural for him to have lost self-control. The provocation was both grave and sudden. Hence in the instant case, the nature and number of injuries B would be immaterial. The sentence which the appellant has already undergone would meet the ends of justice and I . The sentence of fine is also remitted. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Appeal.Disposed of accordingly.